Bret D’Auguste was an experienced skier when he rented equipment to ski at Hunter Mountain Ski Bowl, Inc., owned by Shanty Hollow Corp., in New York. The adjustable retention/release value for the bindings on the rented equipment was set at a level that, according to skiing industry standards, was too low—meaning that the skis would be released too easily—given D’Auguste’s height, weight, and ability. When D’Auguste entered a “double black diamond,” or extremely difficult, trail, he noticed immediately that the surface consisted of ice and virtually no snow. He tried to exit the steeply declining trail by making a sharp right turn, but in the attempt, his left ski snapped off. D’Auguste lost his balance, fell, and slid down the mountain, striking his face and head against a fence along the trail. According to a report by a rental shop employee, one of the bindings on D’Auguste’s skis had a “cracked heel housing.” D’Auguste filed a suit in a New York state court against Shanty Hollow and others, including the bindings’ manufacturer, on a theory of strict product liability. The manufacturer filed a motion for summary judgment. On what basis might the court grant the motion? On what basis might the court deny the motion? How should the court rule? Explain.