Tim is an employee at Subby Sam's, where he makes and delivers sandwiches. On November 20, Subby Sam's runs out of mayonnaise. The manager of Subby Sam's asks Tim to drive to the grocery store and buy four jars of mayonnaise so that Subby Sam's can continue to artfully craft their sandwiches. This is something Tim routinely does when Subby Sam's runs out of a given product; this task is therefore within the scope of Tim's employment. While driving to the store, Tim accidentally runs through a stop sign at an intersection, causing a car accident with Betty. Betty's car is destroyed, and she suffers from a broken arm and a mild concussion. Betty sues Subby Sam's for the damage done to her car and for her medical expenses resulting from the accident. Subby Sam's argues that it is not liable for the damage Tim caused when he ran through a stop sign because Tim was negligent, not Subby Sam's. Is Subby Sam's correct? Why or why not?In other words, will Subby Sam's succeed in its argument that this is not a situation where resondeat superior applies?Group of answer choices-Yes, because the accident was caused by Tim's negligence, not by Subby Sam's.-No, because under respondeat superior, employers are liable for the damages caused by their employee's negligence if it occurred while the employee was acting within the scope of his/her employment.-No, because the accident involves tortious conduct by an independent contractor whose principal did not control the manner and means by whic