Avril is a $20-$year$-$old working for Ears$-$R$-$Us$,$ Inc. As part of her job, Avril is required to give free ear piercings. During Avil's work shift on a Tuesday at approximately $4$:$00$ pm$,$ a $12-$year$-$old girl named Elefina walks into Ears$-$R$-$Us with her mom and requests to have her ears $*$ pierced. As Elefina is sitting down to have her ears pierced, Avril mistakenly pierces Elefina's head and causes severe damage. Avil was not functioning properly at work that day due to heavy alcohol consumption. Elefina's parents sue Ears$-$R$-$Us$.$ Is Ears$-$R$-$Us liable as a result of Avril's actions?

$$ Yes, Ears$-$R$-$Us is responsible according to the concept of res ipsa loquitur.

$$ No$,$ Ears$-$R$-$Us is not responsible because a reasonable person would conclude that Avril breached her duty of care.

$$ Both $"$No$,$ Ears$-$R$-$Us is not responsible for Avril's own negligence" and $"$No$,$ Ears$-$R$-$Us is not responsible because a reasonable person would conclude that Avril breached her duty of care."

$$ Yes, Ears$-$R$-$Us is responsible according to the doctrine of respondeat superior.

$$ No$,$ Ears$-$R$-$Us is not responsible for Avril's own negligence.