SCRANTON – Firearms manufacturer Sig Sauer has discounted liability for claims brought by a retired Philadelphia Police Department lieutenant, who alleged he was wounded by stray gunfire when his P320 handgun unexpectedly discharged and shot him in the right arm and shoulder.
James Hall and Nanci Hall of Zion Grove first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on June 13 versus Sig Sauer, Inc. of Newington, N.H.
“James Hall is a retired Philadelphia Police lieutenant who served as a police officer for over 25 years, and spent 16 years in specialized tactical units. Mr. Hall was highly proficient with firearms at all relevant times. On Feb. 5, 2018, Mr. Hall purchased a Sig Sauer P320 (serial no. 58A116924) from Cabela’s in Hamburg, Pennsylvania. The P320 that Mr. Hall purchased had not been put through the ‘voluntary upgrade program,” the suit said.
According to the company’s website, that P320 voluntary upgrade program would “include an alternate design that reduces the physical weight of the trigger, sear and striker, while additionally adding a mechanical disconnector.”
Sig Sauer claimed on its website that the P320 “meets and exceeds all U.S. safety standards” – but also cautions that “mechanical safeties are designed to augment, not replace safe handling practices” and that “careless and improper handling of any firearm can result in an unintentional discharge.”
Hall’s suit added that at the time of the events at issue, the company was “no longer processing online requests” for the upgrade program and instead offered customers like Hall to call the company’s telephone number, where they would assist in signing up customers for the program there, after being provided their handgun’s serial number.
“On Sept. 20, 2022, Mr. Hall drove home from an event and parked his car in his garage. Mr. Hall was on his premises at the time. While on his premises, his P320 fell to the ground, hit the floor and discharged. The round struck Mr. Hall in his right upper arm and shoulder. The round shattered Mr. Hall’s right shoulder and humerus bone,” the suit stated.
“Over 30 minutes after calling 911, an ambulance arrived and rushed Mr. Hall to the emergency room. Mr. Hall underwent emergency open-reduction, internal-fixation surgery to repair his shoulder and arm. Mr. Hall was required to undergo a second surgery to remove several bullet fragments in his shoulder. Mr. Hall was forced to spend 63 days in an in-patient rehabilitation facility after the incident. Mr. Hall still has eight bullet fragments remaining in his shoulder that may never be able to be removed.”
Marketing materials associated with the weapon attribute to it the phrase “Safety Without Compromise” and note that the gun “won’t fire unless you want it to.”
Hall’s suit contains dozens of other examples of the P320 misfiring and additionally claims that over 150 documented instances, with the likely probability of more, which have taken place. The suit noted that the vast majority of these users are law enforcement officers, former military personnel and/or trained and certified gun owners, with a high proficiency level when it comes to firearms.
Sig Sauer has increasingly been the target of numerous such product liability actions across the United States, many of which have alleged that, in the course of its nine years on the market, the P320’s lack of mandated safety features has resulted in the guns misfiring and causing countless injuries to their owners and bystanders.
In one such case in a Kentucky federal court, a judge granted summary judgment to Sig Sauer this past March, finding that plaintiff Stephen Mayes’s expert witnesses did not meet a standard of reliability. In another similar case resolved in July 2022, a New Hampshire federal court jury also found for Sig Sauer.
UPDATE
Sig Sauer answered the lawsuit on Aug. 14 – and admitted that while it was “aware of allegations of negligent discharges involving P320 pistols that were the result of an inadvertent trigger pull, either by the user’s finger or a foreign object, the P320 model pistol does not discharge without trigger actuation and any suggestion to the contrary is patently false and has not been replicated.”
The company added that “multiple courts across the country have dismissed – with prejudice – similar claims by individuals who alleged their P320 model pistols fired without trigger actuation, because such claims were unsupported and could not be replicated.”
Sig Sauer further provided 20 affirmative defenses on its own behalf.
“Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Sig has no control over the maintenance, handling, or use of its products. Sig further states that if there was any defect or deficiency to a product manufactured by Sig, at the time of the incident alleged, such defect or deficiency did not relate to the original design, manufacture or sale of the product or of any problems undertaken by Sig, but on the contrary, the result is of other acts or omissions on the part of others for whom Sig is not responsible including negligent or faulty maintenance, handling, use or alteration,” according to the defenses, in part.
“No warnings or instructions were required because any claimed danger would be apparent to an ordinary user. However, Sig provided written warnings against the particular uses, misuses, or abuses by the plaintiffs of the firearm that is the subject of the complaint. The warnings and instructions were sufficient to inform an ordinary user of the risk of harm. The risk of harm was one that an ordinary user would reasonably expect. The occurrence, injuries and damages claimed by plaintiffs were proximately caused by the acts, omissions, fault and/or negligence of plaintiffs and/or other third parties over whom Sig had no right to control. Plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the occurrence, injuries and damages claimed by plaintiffs.”
Sig added that the subject firearm and all component parts complied with all federal, state, and local codes, government and industry standards, regulations, specifications and statutes regarding the manufacture, sale and use of the product at all times pertinent to this action, and the plaintiffs are “not entitled to recover, or their damages may be reduced proportionally, to the extent any alleged damages or injuries were caused by the misuse, abuse, failure to properly maintain or care for the products at issue herein, or substantial modification of the product.”
For counts of negligence, strict product liability and loss of consortium, the plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’ fees, costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.
The plaintiffs are represented by Robert Mongeluzzi, Larry Bendesky, Robert W. Zimmerman, Daniel L. Ceisler and Ryan D. Hurd of Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky, in Philadelphia.
The defendant is represented by Kristen E. Dennison of Littleton Park Joyce Ughetta & Kelly, in Radnor.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 3:23-cv-00978
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com