Following a three-week trial, a Philadelphia jury on Wednesday awarded a U.S. Army veteran $11 million in a product liability case against gunmaker Sig Sauer after he was shot by his own gun.
This is believed to be the second time a jury has found Sig Sauer, based in New Hampshire, liable over alleged design flaws with its popular P320 model pistol, including that it is susceptible to firing without an intentional trigger pull. In June, a jury in Georgia after he was shot in the thigh while allegedly removing the gun from its holster.
Dozens of other court cases pending nationwide make the same allegation. Since 2018, Sig Sauer has been sued by more than 100 civilians and members of law enforcement who claim their P320 fired without an intentional trigger pull. Sig Sauer maintains that the P320 is safe and has vowed to appeal the latest ruling.
The U.S. Army adopted a version of the P320 as its official sidearm in 2017 in a deal valued at more than $500 million for the Newington gunmaker. The Marine Corps, Air Force and Navy followed suit in selecting the Sig Sauer pistol as its duty weapon, as have militaries around the globe. The U.S. military鈥檚 version of the gun, known as the M17 and M18, has an external safety, which is not standard on the vast majority of models sold on the civilian market.
by the military show that there have been multiple alleged unintentional discharges involving the weapon on military bases.
Gunmaker found negligent
In June 2020, George Abrahams was shot in the thigh after he said his P320, which was holstered and zippered inside of a pants pocket, fired a bullet while he walked down a set of stairs in his Philadelphia home.
A jury found that while Abrahams鈥� handling of the gun contributed to its discharge, the gunmaker was, on balance, more negligent and therefore required to pay compensatory damages.
鈥淭he question was, was defendant Sig Sauer recklessly indifferent to the interest of others? The jury answered yes,鈥� said Robert Zimmerman, an attorney who represented Abrahams and has also filed more than 100 similar lawsuits on behalf of other Sig Sauer gun owners who claim they were injured by their own guns.
In a statement, Sig Sauer noted that the jury agreed that Abrahams was partially liable for the incident, and vowed to fight the ruling.
鈥淲e strongly disagree with the verdict in this unintended discharge lawsuit, have already moved for a mistrial, and will be appealing the decision on multiple grounds,鈥� the company said in a statement posted to its website.
Zimmerman noted that the company鈥檚 own internal research alledgedly found the P320 carried a risk of defect, and that it has failed to redesign the gun to include an external safety to prevent unintentional discharges.
鈥淓very single one of my clients: their goal is for Sig Sauer to finally do the right thing and put a safety on every single one of these guns,鈥� said Zimmerman.
In 2017, a raised concerns about the P320鈥檚 risk of firing when dropped at certain angles, which helped prompt the company to launch a voluntary upgrade of the gun, including hardware changes to the trigger and striker. The company maintains that the gun is safe, including in its original design.
