Which of the following represented the position of the Supreme Court of Tennessee in the Case Opener in which the plaintiff attempted to hold a hospital vicariously liable for her injuries?

A. That a defendant in the position of the hospital is vicariously liable for injuries received within its premises without a need for further proof B. That because the plaintiff dismissed the hospital's alleged agent from the lawsuit, she could not proceed even though she had sued the hospital before dismissing the agent C. That the plaintiff was barred from proceeding because vicarious liability is not recognized in the medical malpractice arena D. That the plaintiff could proceed but only because she had already established liability on the part of the physician employees involved E. That the hospital could be held vicariously liable if the plaintiff established that a wrongful act harming her occurred within the scope of the agent's employment