Question 3: Rule Synthesis (35 points) Read the two cases that follow and synthesize a single rule regarding the duty of care owed by an individual faced with an emergency situation. CASE 1: On October 16, 2007, Stephanie Chapman was driving southbound on Pike's highway. Her friend, Tasha Tracy, was in the front passenger seat next to her. At the same time, Mandi Platt was headed in the opposite direction on the same highway. Suddenly, Platt lost control of the vehicle she was driving and her car veered out of its lane and entered the lane where Chapman was driving. Chapman swerved to avoid Platt's car. However, in so doing, Chapman drove off the highway and hit a barrier, injuring Tracy. Tracy sued Chapman for negligence. The court found that Chapman was not liable for negligence. The court reasoned that a person faced with a sudden emergency, not created by his own doing, is not guilty of negligence if he acts as a reasonable person would when faced with a similar circumstance. Here, Chapman was confronted with a sudden emergency when Platt's car entered her lane. Chapman had little or no time to think or reflect. Chapman's decision to swerve and avoid Platt's car was a decision that any reasonable person would make when faced with such an emergency. Therefore, Chapman should not be liable for Tracy's injuries