A 15-year-old threw a 2.5-pound piece of concrete from an overhead pass. It went through the windshield of the truck Barbara Collins was driving. As a result, she suffered severe brain injuries. She sued the truck manufacturer under a theory of strict product liability, claiming that the windshield was defective because its penetration resistance was inadequate. In turn, the truck manufacturer argued that the juvenile's criminal conduct was a superseding cause that relieved it of liability. Who do you think has the better argument and why?