Beatrice is a 20-year-old working for Ears-R-Us, Inc. As part of her job, Beatrice is required to give free ear piercings. During Beatrice's work shift on a Tuesday at approximately 4:00pm, a 12-year-old girl named Chloe walks into Ears-R-Us with her mom and requests to have her ears pierced. As Chloe is sitting down to have her ears pierced, Beatrice mistakenly pierces Chloe's head and causes severe damage. Beatrice was not functioning properly at work that day due to heavy alcohol consumption. Chloe's parents sue Ears-R-Us. Is Ears-R-Us liable as a result of Beatrice's actions? O No, Ears-R-Us is not responsible for Beatrice's own negligence. Yes, Ears-R-Us is responsible according to the concept of res ipsa loquitur. Yes, Ears-R-Us is responsible according to the doctrine of respondeat superior. O Both "No, Ears-R-Us is not responsible for Beatrice's own negligence" and "No, Ears-R-Us is not responsible because a reasonable person would conclude that Beatrice breached her duty of care." O No, Ears-R-Us is not responsible because a reasonable person would conclude that Beatrice breached her duty of care