A truck transporting explosives went out of control when a tire suddenly blew. The truck struck a motorist's car as it was waiting at a stoplight, seriously injuring the motorist. The area around the accident was immediately evacuated, but fortunately the explosives were not detonated.In an action alleging strict liability against the freight carrier that owned the truck, the motorist established the above facts and presented evidence of her injuries. The carrier presented evidence that the blowout was caused by a hidden defect in the tire that could not be detected by routine inspection. The tires were manufactured by the carrier's regular supplier and had not previously caused any problems. The carrier also presented evidence that the local authorities were supposed to restrict access to roads along the truck's route but had failed to do so.In this action, is the motorist likely to prevail?A Yes, because the tire was in a defective condition that made it unreasonably dangerous.B Yes, because the freight carrier was engaged in an abnormally dangerous activity.C No, because the injury did not arise from the dangerous propensity of the activity.D No, because the negligence of the local authorities in failing to restrict access to roads along the truck's route was a superseding cause of the motorist's injuries.