Philadelphia, PA — An $11 million verdict has been ordered by a Philadelphia jury for a man injured by his own holstered Sig Sauer pistol, which discharged unexpectedly while he descended a staircase. This incident, causing severe leg injuries, marks the second significant legal challenge this year facing Sig Sauer regarding their P320 model, following earlier allegations around its safety.
The jury found that the New Hampshire-based firearm manufacturer was liable for selling what they termed a defective product after a three-week trial. The decision intensifies ongoing scrutiny over the P320 model, which critics argue can fire without the trigger being pulled. This alleged defect is linked to numerous similar complaints across the country, positioning the P320 as a contentious issue in firearm safety discussions.
During recent proceedings, more than 100 individuals have lodged comparable complaints about the P320’s unintended discharge, asserting its potential hazard to users. Despite these claims, Sig Sauer maintains that the firearm meets safety standards.
According to Robert W Zimmerman, the attorney for the plaintiff, efforts have been ongoing for over three years to prompt Sig Sauer to recall or modify the P320. “These verdicts are a forceful call to action for Sig Sauer,” Zimmerman remarked, emphasizing the urgency for enhanced safety measures comparable to those adopted by other gun manufacturers.
The plaintiff, George Abrahams, a U.S. Army veteran and local painting contractor, recounted how the incident occurred when the holstered pistol in his athletic pants pocket discharged as he was moving downstairs. The bullet penetrated his right thigh and exited above the knee, inflicting permanent damage.
Despite the jury’s decision, Sig Sauer at the trial contended that the weapon’s design was safe and implied that Abrahams was at fault for the accident. The company, which has hinted at plans to appeal an earlier $2.35 million ruling in a similar case in Georgia this year, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Further accentuating concerns around the P320 model, plaintiffs’ attorneys have highlighted the distinction between the military version of the pistol, which includes an external safety feature, and those sold to the police and civilian markets, which lack this preventative addition.
Past incidents, such as the 2019 case where a Philadelphia transit officer’s holstered P320 inadvertently discharged, have prompted actions like those by Septa, the city’s transit authority, which replaced all its P320 handguns with models from another manufacturer.
In an earlier settlement of a federal class-action lawsuit concerning pre-2017 versions of the P320, Sig Sauer offered refunds or replacements to affected customers, acknowledging issues with the earlier models.
Given the series of legal and safety challenges faced by the P320, this latest verdict serves as a critical juncture for Sig Sauer in addressing consumer safety concerns. Stakeholders anticipate further responses from the firearms community and possible safety reforms as litigation and complaints continue to surface.
This article was automatically written by OpenAI. Readers should note the reported people, facts, circumstances, and stories may be inaccurate. For corrections or retraction requests, please contact [email protected].