10. Michelle Wightman was driving toward a railroad crossing atwhich the gates were down and the lights flashing. Wightman noted astopped train a short distance from the gate. Believing the stoppedtrain to be the cause of the closed gate, she drove around the gateand was struck and killed by a train that suddenly appeared frombehind the stopped train. The stopped train had blocked her view ofthe oncoming train. Both trains were owned and operated byConsolidated Rail Corporation (CRC). Wightman's mother brought awrongful death lawsuit and a survivorship action against CRC. Inresponse, CRC claimed that Wightman's action of driving around thegates, in violation of both state and city law regarding theoperation of a motor vehicle at a railroad crossing, constitutednegligence on her part. Furthermore, CRC argued that if Wightmanhad not crossed the tracks, she would not have been struck by thetrain. Therefore, her actions were the sole cause of the accident,and the railroad corporation should not be held liable for herdeath. The attorney for the plaintiff argued that the placement ofthe first train, blocking the view of the other track, contributedto the accident and that CRC should be held liable for Wightman'sdeath. Should Wightman's own negligence be a complete bar to theplaintiff's recovery of damages in this case? Explain. [See:Wightman v. Consolidated Railroad Corporation, 640 N.E.2d1160 (OH).]