Question: A pedestrian was walking in front of a hotel in the downtown area when a chair was thrown from an unidentified window. The chair struck the pedestrian on the head, knocking her unconscious. When the pedestrian recovered consciousness, she found herself in a nearby hospital with a doctor in attendance. An examination revealed that the pedestrian had suffered a concussion and severe head lacerations. A subsequent investigation revealed that the chair had, in fact, been thrown from a window at the hotel. None of the hotel's employees or guests, however, admitted culpability for the incident. If the pedestrian asserts a claim against the hotel for negligence, will the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur enable her to recover?
A: Yes, because the chair was within the control of the hotel. 
B: Yes, because a chair is not usually thrown from a window in the absence of someone's negligence. 
C: No, because the chair was not within the control of the hotel at the time the pedestrian was injured. 
D: No, because the hotel is not vicariously liable for the tortious conduct of its employees. 
Please eliminate two incorrect options first, then think it step by step and choose the most proper one option. Please reply with exactly 4 paragraphs and separate each paragraph with two new lines. The very first paragraph must start with the word "cautious".
user