Memorandum

From: 	Mark B. Seiger

RE: 	Goodkind v. Burton Snowboards, et al.,

Case History

	Issac Goodkind died of positional asphyxiation while 
snowboarding at Homewood Ski area, Lake Tahoe, California, on 
January 2, 1993. At the time of his death, Issac was riding a Craig 
Kelly model board with freestyle bindings. Snow conditions on the 
day of Issac's death were extremely hazardous as there was eighteen 
feet of fresh powder. Homewood had been closed the previous day 
because of the unusual snow conditions; however, Issac had been 
wording as a lift operator that year at Homewood and worked the 
precious day digging out the lifts.

	Issac had purchased his snowboarding from Andy Whitman at 
Ski Shop Santa Cruz on November 22, 1992. At the time of Issac's 
purchase Ski Shop Santa Cruz was following Burton's request that it's 
retailers require all purchasers of Burton snowboards and bindings 
to sign Burton's "Retail Snowboard Equipment Purchase, Release of 
Liability, Waiver of Claims and Assumption of Risk Agreement" 
release. Burton's Release was designed to help both Burton and its 
retail shops defend against frivolous lawsuits filed by riders injured 
or killed. The Release specifically makes it clear to a purchaser that 
the bindings are not designed to release.

	In the Goodkind lawsuit, Issac's parents sued Homewood Ski 
Area, Burton Snowboards, Ski Shop Santa Cruz and Andy Whitman. 
The claims against Homewood were two fold. First, the area where 
Issac died should have been closed. Second, Homewood was negligent 
in conducting its search and rescue operation. As against Burton, the 
plaintiff/s claims were three fold. First, the snowboard was defective 
because it was not manufactured with releasable bindings. Second, 
the snowboard was defective since it was not manufactured with a 
bright florescent base making it more visible during a search. Third, 
Burton's advertising encouraged the use of intoxicants (the autopsy 
showed that Issac had marijuana in his system). The claims against 
Ski Shop Santa Cruz and Andy Whitman were based upon the first 
two theories alleged against Burton.

	After the lawsuit was served on Burton, Burton contacted Andy 
Whitman to see if he had a signed Release from Issac Goodkind. Mr. 
Whitman informed Burton that it was his policy to have purchases of 
Burton snowboards sign the release; however he was unable to locate 
Issac's. Some eight months later Mr. Whitman's partner found Issac's 
signed release while cleaning out a file drawer at Ski Shop Santa 
Cruz. With the Release in hand, we went about completing discovery 
so that we could file a motion for summary judgment on behalf of 
Burton, Ski Shop Santa Cruz, and Andy Whitman.

	During the discovery phase of the lawsuit, it was learned that 
Issac Goodkind and his friend had had discussions amongst 
themselves about the dangers associated with snowboarding in 
extremely deep snow conditions. In fact, they discussed the risk of 
asphyxiation if they were to go upside down in a tree well. This 
discussion took place since a thirteen year old boy had died that way 
at Homewood the week before Issac's death. As part of their 
discussions, they talk about what they could do in a tree well 
situation in order to increase their likelihood of survival. Moreover, it 
was learned that Issac's mother had called Issac two days before his 
death expressing her concern for his safety as she had read in the 
newspaper about the death the week before of the thirteen year old 
boy. Unfortunately, Issac died on January 2, 1993 after going head 
first into eighteen feet of powder while riding in an area known as 
Hobbit Land. It took approximately five hours for the ski patrol to 
locate and extricate Issac from the snow.

	In late August, 1995, all defendants moved for summary 
judgment. After hearing oral argument, Judge Yonst of the Superior 
Court for the State of California, District of Santa Cruz, denied 
Summary Judgment as to the Homewood Ski Area, but granted it as 
to Burton Snowboards, Ski Shop Santa Cruz and Andy Whitman. The 
Judge's sole reason for entering judgment in favor of Burton, Ski 
Shop Santa Cruz and Andy Whitman, without the need for a 
protracted jury trial, was the signed Release. Judge Yonst 
acknowledged that the Release clearly stated that the bindings were 
designed not to release, and they performed as intended. As such, 
neither Burton, Ski Shop Santa Cruz nor Andy Whitman should be 
forced to remain in a long and protracted jury trial.

	Depending on the outcome of the plaintiff's lawsuit against 
Homewood Ski Area, the plaintiff may file an appeal to the California 
Appellate Court. However, Burton's counsel is confident that Judge 
Yonst's decision will be upheld by the Appellate Court if the plaintiff 
decides to take an appeal.

	We all know that non-releasable bindings are the safest for use 
on snwoboards. The biomechanics of snowboard are quite different 
from alpine skiing. In alpine skiing releasable bindings were 
designed solve two types of injuries--spiral fractures of the tibia and 
boot top fractures. These injuries just do not exist in snowboarding. 
Clearly, a releasable snowboarding binding would make the sport of 
snowboarding much too dangerous. Therefore, Burton's Release was 
intended to allow it to eliminate litigation for alleged product defects 
where the bindings performed exactly as intended. Absent the 
signed Release, Burton would have been forced to defend its decision 
to use non-releasable binding in a trail that was expected to last 
approximately 12 to 16 weeks.

	Judge Yonst's decision reinforces the importance of using 
release agreements. These agreements work and can eliminate 
frivolous lawsuits relating to the non-releasable snowboard binding 
design.