Bret D’Auguste was an experienced skier when he rented equipment to ski at Hunter Mountain Ski Bowl in New York. When D’Auguste entered an extremely difficult trail, he noticed immediately that the surface consisted of ice with almost 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 lawsuit against the bindings’ manufacturer on a theory of strict product liability. The manufacturer filed a motion for summary judgment. (See Product Liability.) 

(a) The first group will take the position of the manufacturer and develop an argument for why the court should grant the summary judgment motion and dismiss the strict product liability claim.

(b) The second group will take the position of D’Auguste and formulate a basis for why the court should deny the motion and allow the strict product liability claim. 

(c) The third group will evaluate whether D’Auguste assumed the risk of this type of injury. 

(d) The fourth group will analyze whether the manufacturer could claim that D’Auguste’s negligence (under the comparative negligence doctrine) contributed to his injury.