Analyze fact pattern and explain in detail, referring to class discussion, research and case law, the likely outcome.
Jill went into the doctor because of pain she had been experiencing in her right shoulder. The doctor did an MRI and advised her that she was in need of rotator cuff surgery. After discussing all of the risks associated with it, Jill agreed to undergo the surgery. The surgery was conducted on April 12, 2011. Everything went fine and 1 month after the surgery, Jill was completely recovered and back to work. One day, when Jill was at the airport, she went through the security check and kept setting off the metal detector alarm. She was frisked and had nothing on her but she still kept setting it off. Upon entering the new high-tech "x-ray device" as instructed by the TSA employee at the airport, it was discovered, from the TSA employee, that Jill appeared to have some random metal object lodged underneath her right shoulder blade.
After returning from her trip, Jill immediately went to the doctor and had another x-ray confirming that she had a metal screw lodged in her muscle behind her right shoulder blade and that she would have to undergo surgery to have it removed. The screw was removed and after 4 months of therapy, Jill has fully recovered. It was determined that the screw is a type used in medical instruments, including those that are used in repairing one's rotator cuff. Jill decides to sue the doctor who performed her rotator cuff surgery for negligence under the theory of res ipsaloquitor. Will she prevail?