Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
stressed that an employer can be vicariously liable for conduct of an employee that was (1) done in furtherance of the employer’s business or at least partly motivated by an intention to serve the employer; (2) of the kind that the employee was employed to perform; (8) substantially within the authorized “time and space” limits of the employment; or (4) expectable in view of the employee’s duties. Booker v. GTE.net LLC, 350 F.3d 515, 518-19 (6th Cir.2003) (applying Kentucky law). As an initial matter, I note that RWT is not necessarily relieved of vicarious liability for malicious prosecution solely because it is an intentional tort. There are numerous decisions finding employers vicariously liable for the intentional torts of their employees. See, e.g., Patterson, 172 S.W.3d at 363 ; Frederick v. Collins, 378 S.W.2d 617
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a car dealership could be held vicariously liable for the intentional tort of its employee who shot out the tires of the plaintiffs truck during a repossession attempt
B. holding a store vicariously liable for wrongful death when its employee shot and killed a customer
C. holding that a city could not be held vicariously liable for the act of a magistrate who was immune from liability
D. holding that the doctrine of respondeat superior in maryland allows an employer to be held vicariously liable for the tortious conduct of its employee when that employee was acting within the scope of the employment relationship citations omitted
E. holding that auctioneer who handled sale of car between seller and buyer could not be held liable for allegedly defective condition of car
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.