Philadelphia, PA — A Philadelphia jury recently awarded an $11 million verdict to a U.S. Army veteran in a product liability case against New Hampshire-based gun manufacturer Sig Sauer. The case centered on claims that the veteran was injured when his Sig Sauer P320 model pistol discharged without a trigger pull. This incident highlights ongoing concerns around the safety of this firearm model, which has been at the center of multiple lawsuits across the country.
This marks a significant outcome as it is the second instance where a jury has ruled against Sig Sauer for alleged design flaws in the P320 model. Earlier, in June, a Georgia jury awarded $2.3 million to a man who suffered a thigh injury under similar circumstances, asserting that the gun fired while being removed from its holster.
The verdict comes amid numerous lawsuits filed against the company, citing over 100 instances since 2018 where civilians and law enforcement personnel experienced unintended discharges with the P320 pistol. Despite these claims, Sig Sauer insists that the firearm is safe and has already signaled intentions to appeal the recent verdict.
This case gains additional complexity as the P320 is also the firearm of choice for the U.S. Army, selected in 2017 as part of a $500 million contract with Sig Sauer. The Marine Corps, Air Force, and Navy have also adopted this model for their standard issue sidearms, along with various other global military forces. Notably, the military version of the pistol includes an external safety feature, a modification not commonly installed on the civilian variants.
Reports from the military have documented several instances of alleged accidental discharges, raising questions about the overall safety and design of the P320.
The incident leading to the lawsuit in Philadelphia occurred in June 2020 when plaintiff George Abrahams was injured as his holstered P320 pistol discharged while he was descending stairs at his home. The jury concluded that while Abrahams had some responsibility, Sig Sauer was predominantly at fault due to negligence in the gun’s design.
Robert Zimmerman, the attorney representing Abrahams, who also has filed similar lawsuits for other clients, emphasized the need for the company to address the safety issues identified in court. He pointed out that internal research from Sig Sauer allegedly acknowledged a defect risk in the P320 model which could potentiate unintended discharges.
Though Sig Sauer contested the jury’s decision, stating partial liability on the part of Abrahams, the company has faced prior criticism. Following reports of the P320 discharging when dropped at certain angles, a significant online gun retailer raised concerns in 2017, prompting Sig Sauer to initiate a voluntary upgrade of the firearm that included modifications to the trigger and striker.
Despite these changes, debates about the safety of the original P320 design continue, with ongoing calls for the incorporation of an external safety feature to enhance user security.
This article was automatically written by Open AI. The facts, events, and comments reported may be subject to inaccuracies. Any requests for removal, retraction, or correction of content can be sent to [email protected].