Atlanta, GA — A federal judge in Atlanta recently denied firearm manufacturer Sig Sauer’s motion for a new trial, upholding a June jury verdict that awarded $2.35 million in damages to a Georgia man injured by his Sig Sauer P320 pistol. The weapon discharged while holstered, without any user intervention, severely wounding the plaintiff, Robert Lang.
Attorneys Robert Zimmerman and Ryan Hurd from Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky, who represented Lang, argued the firearm was inherently defective. The trial, which lasted nearly two weeks, highlighted these issues under the case name Lang v. Sig Sauer, 1:21-cv-04196, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
Zimmerman expressed his satisfaction with the court’s decision after a thorough review of the evidence presented during the trial. “This verdict stands as a testament to the jury’s attention to detail and the substantial evidence they were presented,” he said. Zimmerman also criticized Sig Sauer for not altering their product’s design to enhance safety for law enforcement and civilian users.
Additionally, attorney Matthew Bonham from Protentis Law also played a significant role in representing the plaintiff during the trial, while Naveen Ramachandrappa of Bondurant Mixson & Elmore LLP is serving as appellate counsel for Lang.
This litigation is part of a series of legal challenges Sig Sauer faces over the P320 model. In a related development, a federal appeals court in Ohio reinstated another lawsuit on January 27, related to a 2021 incident where a Kentucky man, Timothy Davis, was injured under similar circumstances. Moreover, a Pennsylvania state court awarded $11 million, including punitive damages, to George Abrahams who was also a victim of an unintended discharge of the P320.
The legal battle sheds light on a persisting controversy surrounding the P320 model, which has been embroiled in issues of unintended discharges leading to injuries and fatalities for years. This has prompted calls for the company to undertake significant safety measures like those implemented by other gun manufacturers.
As the cases continue to unfold, legal experts are paying close attention to how these verdicts might influence broader industry standards and regulations concerning firearm safety and manufacturer responsibility.
It should be noted that this article was automatically generated, and the persons, facts, and events mentioned may not be accurate. Any errors in the story can be addressed by sending an email to [email protected] for corrections or retractions.