Becky, a three-year-old child, was seriously injured when she stuck her fingers into an electrical outlet at a restaurant where her parents had taken her for dinner. Her parents sued the restaurant, claiming it should have had child protective guards on the outlets. Which of the following statements is true?

A. The restaurant is liable based on the doctrine of strict liability.

B. The restaurant is not liable as the child's parents should have supervised her more carefully.

C. The restaurant may be liable if the harm suffered by the child was reasonably foreseeable.

D. The restaurant is not liable because the electrician who installed the outlet was an independent contractor.

E. The restaurant is liable based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.