Case Problem with Sample Answer 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 diffi cult, 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 fi led 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 fi led 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. [D’Auguste v. Shanty Hollow Corp., 26 A.D.3d 403, 809 N.Y.S.2d 555 (2 Dept. 2006)]

—After you have answered Problem 17–5, compare your answer with the sample answer given on the Web site that accompanies this text. Go to www.cengage.com/blaw/blt, select “Chapter 17,” and click on “Case Problem with Sample Answer.”