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

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

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

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 Elefina breached her duty of care.

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