Paul is a certified public accountant assigned to an audit of the Bank of Mt. Pleasant (in Iowa) on behalf of his CPA firm - the Des Moines office of Hogan, Hartzell and Hickemeyer (a cpa firm known as "Triple H"). On a Friday, Paul leaves the Des Moines office of HHH and drives his vehicle to Mt. Pleasant, completes his audit duties and says to himself -- "why not go to the gambling boat in nearby Burlington?". Paul spends the next two days in Burlington gambling and drinking. While driving back to Des Moines on Sunday, he crosses the center line and hits another vehicle head on and causes serious injury to the driver of the other vehicle. The injured driver sues HHH on the basis of the doctrine of respondeat superior claiming that Paul was negligent. What is HHH's best defense?

	A.	The injured driver cannot file a civil suit because his exclusive remedy is through worker's compensation.
	B.	The doctrine of respondeat superior cannot apply when an injury occurrence did not occur on HHH premises.
	C.	It has no defenses because Paul was clearly acting within the course and scope of employment and was clearly negligent.
	D.	Paul was not acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the occurrence.