While Rosemary is driving through an intersection, Jeffrey runs a red light and their cars collide. Rosemary then sues Jeffrey for her injuries and pain and suffering, alleging that he was negligent. During the trial, Jeffrey's attorney presents evidence that Rosemary was also negligent because she was speeding. Jeffrey's attorney submits to the court a decision of the supreme court of the state which describes the theory of contributory negligence. Under contributory negligence, if the plaintiff was also negligent, the plaintiff recovers nothing from the defendant. Rosemary's attorney argues it is time to change the law and presents evidence to the court that $32$ states have already changed their law from contributory negligence to comparative negligence, because contributory negligence produces unfair results. Under the theory of comparative negligence, a jury compares the negligence of the plaintiff and the negligence of the defendant. Under comparative negligence, Rosemary would be unable to recover all of her damages, but she would be able to recover the amount for which the defendant was held responsible. When deciding whether to follow existing precedent or ignore that precedent, the court:

a$.$ may ignore precedent and change the law if there is a good reason to do so$.$

b$.$ may ignore precedent because each court has the authority to decide each case for itself.

c$.$ may ignore precedent, but it would not change the law for future cases.

d$.$ must follow precedent and decide the present case the same way