Several cars of a freight train transporting nuclear waste derailed as the train neared a street crossing. One of the cars struck a motorist$$s car as it was waiting at the crossing gate, seriously injuring the motorist. The area around the accident was immediately evacuated, but fortunately none of the freight cars ruptured in the derailment.

In an action alleging strict liability against the railway that operated the freight train, the motorist established the above facts and presented evidence of her injuries. The railway presented evidence that the derailment was caused by a hidden defect in the spikes that anchored the rails to the track. The spikes were manufactured by its regular supplier and had not previously caused any problems. The railroad also presented evidence that the local authorities were supposed to restrict access to roads crossing the freight line while that particular train was in transit, but they had failed to do so$.$

In this action, is the motorist likely to prevail?

Group of answer choices

No$,$ because the injury did not arise from the dangerous propensity of the activity.

Yes, because the spikes were in a defective condition that made them unreasonably dangerous.

Yes, because the railway was engaged in an abnormally dangerous activity.

No$,$ because the negligence of the local authorities in failing to restrict access to roads crossing the freight line was a superseding cause of the motorist$$s injuries.