Jury finds Sig Sauer liable for pistol shooting; awards $2.3M in damages | New Hampshire Public Radio

Trigger safety?

A jury found Sig Sauer was negligent for Langs injuries due to the design of the weapon, including that it lacked a trigger safety. Sig Sauers P320 pistol is one of the countrys most popular guns, with more than 2.5 million sold, according to court records.

__________________
I’m your Boogie Man, uh huh.

As the article states, the 320 (M17, M18), with a manual safety, is the US military's current sidearm.

Does the US military currently teach to carry with a round in the chamber or does it teach to rack after drawing?

That's a scary finding. Few firearms have a "trigger safety", no revolvers have one. If this stands it opens the door for product liability cases for all firearms manufacturers.

Some years back Glock was sued for NDs. Turned out in most cases something snagged the trigger when it was being reholstered. As we all know, Glock kind of invented the "trigger safety"....

__________________
Even older, even crankier....

This has been discussed here and elsewhere. The lever/pivot/tab in the trigger is supposed to act as a drop safety, not to prevent inadvertent actuation of the trigger (as in when something catches the trigger, as in the Glock situation).

The issue seems to be the trigger in the P320 'appears' to be prone to marginal engagement with the striker mechanism in some situations. Hence the videos of guns going off in holsters without being touched. Don't know if an added trigger tab would prevent this.

__________________
Alan
SWCA LM 2023, SWHF 220

Never trust you money, freedom or life to twelve people too stupid to get off jury duty. (Or people who actually want to serve on juries)

Not speaking of decent people who see it as a duty, but too many today are social justice warriors and because it involved an evil gun, had their minds made up before any evidence was presented.

__________________
Bill

I was involved in a product liability case involving an accidental shooting. The allegation was that our client made a defective gun because it would fire without the magazine in it. Besides the fact that our client didn't make the gun in question, I got to handle it and tested all the safety features and found the magazine safety did work perfectly. I swore out an affidavit in support of a Motion to Dismiss and got our client out of the case before trial.

Based on my limited experience, I agree. It seems that anyone in the jury pool who seems to have a single working brain cell during voir dire is eliminated from duty. I have been called for jury duty at least a dozen times, never selected even once. My most insane experience involved a trial in municipal court involving a guy who didn't have a license for his dog. Can anyone imagine holding a full jury trial for such an offense? I wasn't selected to be on that jury either. And I really wanted to be on that jury.

I'm hardly shocked. It was a jury decades ago that said Audi was at fault for "uncommanded acceleration" events, rather than the more likely explanation that the drivers were pushing on the wrong pedal.

In this particular case I'd be more inclined to believe that Sig was at fault as I find their design overcomplex, but maybe that's just me.

__________________
Release the Kraken

Can’t comment on today’s SOP, but back when I was active, SOP when under arms (security details, not in a combat zone) was empty chamber, loaded magazine, rifle or pistol. During DS/DS, while technically in a combat zone, as support units we carried sidearms empty chamber, loaded mags. Same for flight crews.

__________________
"Your other right........."

There is no universal doctrine. Weapon condition depends on unit SOPs and the specific environment. In Kosovo (peacekeeping) my unit’s SOP was magazine inserted, chamber empty. In Iraq we had a round in the chamber, with the safety engaged.

__________________
Mark Lathem

The serious flaws with the 320 and drop safety were very heavily discussed on another forum to which I belong. Some pretty savvy people I respect expressed the highest level of misgivings. This is pretty old news, but one probably has to travel in certain circles to be aware of it.

As for the military adopting it, one issue is that the sidearm is a tertiary weapon for most. They did cut down the FBI test that resulted in adopting the Gen 5 Glocks because of some questionable reasons. The 320 did not even come close to passing the FBI test.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

I flew C-141s from 1986 until 2002. Aircrew SOP was 6 rounds loaded in the S&W Model 15. When the M9 came along, SOP was full magazine, first round chambered, de-cock, safety off.

Yes. A certain forum has 100+ pages of largely well informed discussion. The salient point is multiple police agencies have suffered “uncommanded discharges”, including at least three caught on video.

The video part is important, because they make it clear holstered p320s were firing with no hands involved.

The issue SIG is dealing with is not solely deep pocket motivated, it is their deceptive approach of “voluntary upgrade” for civilian/police handguns while the manufacturer knew there was a problem in their products. On top of the uncommanded discharges, SIG significantly modified their P320 sear engagement in the development of M17/18 tender with the US government (presumably to avoid False Claims Act liability).

Supposed SIG has ironed out the P320 trigger sear issues. Some agencies that paused P320 rollouts, such as Texas DPS, are reportedly putting the “upgraded” guns on the street.

There is a much bigger element that SIG’s business practices have proved to be a fairly alluring interest to the liability bar. SIG has settled lots of P320 cases with confidentiality clauses but they look very vulnerable. That is a big deal for (1) a major DOD small arms supplier and (2) a leading US firearms company. Little good will come of this.

When I was on active duty there were no rounds chambered when carrying a handgun (M1911A1/M9). THere was one unit that did carry a round in the chamber and that was the Security Force Battalions Fleet Anti-Terriorist Security Teams (F.A.S.T.).

__________________
USMC 69-93 Combat Pistol Inst.

I not a fan of sig p320 . When they first came out there were no thumb safeties and they were not drop safe but it took close to 7 years before sig came up with a a recall , No that was called an Up Date not a recall to make them drop safe supposedly ! Maybe there still not really drop safe ! Then siggly came out with the p320-X5 and other new models or changed models like the new compact version about the same time they dropped several cartridge options but those new "compacts that had the shorter 3.6" sub compact barrels with the same poor chamber support in the the 9mm that had some of the worse chamber support found with heavily bulged brass with standard pressure ammo . Then getting siggly to fix those barrels took some time for them to admit they had a problem . I dumped the p320 I had do to lack of trust to proof test a firearm then fix a real issue not try to pass it off as " in spec " until many folks showed it to be real so I'll never at that own another sig .

If you do not believe search sig p320X5 bulged brass photos and treads .

I have a Sig M17, Sig P320 Compact, Sig P320x Compact, Sig P365 and Sig P322. I've shot the 320's the most (thousands of rounds). I shot the P365 1,000 rounds of factory ammo before I started carrying it. I never had a problem that can be attributed to the guns. No bulged empties and I have reloaded 9mm cases multiple times. I put more stock in my personal experience than internet opinions. It would appear to me that juries are mostly comprised of people who are ignorant of firearms. The same goes for attorneys and judges. The majority of police officers have only a rudimentary understanding of their firearms. No other firearm manufacturers who have recalls have taken so much heat as Sig. I suspect a lot of it is from Glock fanboys and I suspect maybe even interindustry led rumor mills. No matter, there are always anti-Sig folks ready to pounce at a moment's notice.

My first trip to visit my daughter and new son in law in New Hampshire, the wife and daughter stayed in the vehicle while son in law and I went inside. (Wife’s mistake) I came out with a sales receipt enjoying the Sales Tax Free Purchase of a P320 X5 Legion sent to my FFL. It is a dream to shoot at targets, light weight trigger, a slightly heavy gun so quick follow up shots. I do not keep a round in the chamber and I do not ever carry it for protection. It is very accurate and fun to shoot.
Growing up in a small town in South Texas we started with one police officer/ combo dog catcher and it grew to a police chief with three or four police officers. After receiving new pistols they decided to try and find out which one was the quickest draw, after a few times they increased their speed until ones gun went off and he went to the hospital with a crease in his leg from an accidently discharged weapon. I only knew about this because my father was on the city council and the police chief had to explain the hospital bill.
The above attached story kind of fits mine, and with the right jury any one can be found guilty or not guilty of something. Businesses in Deep South Texas deal with this all the time.

I like Sigs. I carried my P220 for 25 years in the FBI, and I carry a Sig P210 Carry Model often.

A couple of years ago my kids got me a .357 Sig 320 for my birthday. I have a spare .40 barrel and I shoot it a lot, but I don’t carry it. I think the jury got it right, and Sig is going to have to keep shelling out the dough until there is some kind of fix. I don’t want to re-litigate the case, but the video evidence is pretty compelling. Somehow these guns can go off in the holster if the circumstances are just right.

Just fix it.

Attached Images

	IMG_2778.jpg (31.1 KB, 30 views)
	IMG_4396.jpg (97.8 KB, 37 views)
	IMG_0255.jpg (76.2 KB, 34 views)

__________________
Rule of law, not a man.

SIG Sauer's line of handguns began in 1975 with the SIG Sauer SIG P220. In the late 1970s and early 1980s I was impressed with the quality.

Fast forward forty years and I am not impressed anymore. They want to compete with Glock and keep the price point down. Its like putting a Cadillac badge on a Yugo.

The military has been making bad decisions for many years because of conflict of interests. The Generals and Admirals are all just looking to get rich. Recently Military dot com had a story about a Navy Admiral who makes $500K annually from a corporation that he assisted to get a contract when he was still on active duty.

Military Industrial Complex making a new generation of billionaires while sacrificing another generation of young men and women. JMHO.

A few nuggets stood out to me as I read through the article - the first being the quote "including the lack of a trigger safety", meaning it was was just one of the causes that led to the discharge in question.

The next thing was that there were two other separate but substantially similar incidents that Sig settled out of court, so this is not a sole occurrence.

The last thing is that the article mentions the version of the pistol used by the military has an external safety, but according to Sig's own website there are many versions of this gun that has no trigger or external safety at all. Sig is very explicit in warning about this on their site.

Now I only know what I've read here, but just based on what little info is available to me I could see where Sig would lose this case.

That crafty Norwegian, Iver Johnson, copied Gaston's trigger safety for his revolver back around 1896.

Attached Images

Iver-Johnson38-EntireLeftSide.jpg (61.3 KB, 62 views)

...I would have been struck from that jury. But on the other hand I kinda wish I was on it considering the verdict.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

Well, FWIW, settling out of court is a common tactic chosen by corporations who are sued for what they believe to be frivolous reasons. The calculus can be, depending on circumstances, of course, that the cost of litigating to achieve a not guilty verdict exceeds the cost of an out of court payment settlement to get lost.

E.g., I know a lawyer who, many years ago, worked for Sea World in Florida. A customer/visitor/tourist sued, saying that her use of a Namu-the-killer-whale baby carriage, upon which she had tripped and fallen, ruined her sex life. She sued for an exorbitant amount of money.

The lawyer, looking the situation over, considering the costs of litigation, said to the woman, "How about we give you $2000 and you go away?"

She accepted. Game over.

Of course, it is a judgement call. If word gets out that a corporation is a light touch, better to fight it.

Sig did fix there very real issues so you got lucky but a little research will show you the how bad some X pistols were . Do not assume your right with out a little search time !! I hate glock , carry a colt 1911 and m&ps hunt with DW revolver and have 7 brands of handguns ,wife carry's a kimber ultra or p365xl but no P320 allowed around our home and even our high volume lgs seels no p320's .

No luck involved, although admittedly, I don't make a habit of dropping guns. The first Sig I got was the P320 Compact. It did go in for the trigger upgrade. Shooting them for thousands of rounds trumps internet "research". You do you and I'll do me.

Some of the above posters base their opinions on personal experience. You may own a dinosaur that has never eaten a human being. That does not mean dinosaurs do not eat human beings. I was a Sig police armorer and love Sigs. I own a WG Sig P228. I know Sig factory trained armorers. They, like me would not own a 320. My states Highway Patrol issues 320's. No negligent discharges... yet

It was not the drop safe issue that bothered me I 've owned or CC'd series 70 1911 going way back. It's how sig dealt delt with there lack of testing and then calling it a "update " Not a recall . When the X series first came out sig had many chamber support issues with the brass in 9mm . By then the 40 was gone and the 357sig was circling the drain and a the 45 was be reduced . The P320 might be a 9mm only line today but not like I care or bother checking .

After sig told me my 9mm barrel was in spec I took it to my gun shop - a general store - and a sig rep was contacted by the general store owner . Not sure what happened but I was given credit for toward another handgun and picked up a m&p 2.0 compact OR ,TS and was out zero dollars .

I do know any p320's sold today there are only special ordered now , not for inventory . They sell lots on P365 models and still sell classic sigs but not the p320's .

Be glad you did not by a early 0320x5 or other the others like the X compact I had .

I bought my P320 in .357 early on, and 357 was only because the .45 hadn't been released yet and I didn't want to wait. All that to say, I've been following the P320 since early on and I remember all the various problems and their sequence. Based on that, this is my theory:

The early P320s were having problems with trigger slap so...
...in come the engineers. They increase the mass of the trigger to prevent the trigger slap.

The increased mass of the trigger caused a drop-safety problem, so...
...in come the engineers who reduce the mass of the trigger and loosen up some tolerances to prevent the original trigger-slap problem.

The looser tolerances cause the gun to discharge uncommanded, so...

Seriously, have their engineers never heard of FMEA or FMECA?

That's my theory anyway.

It heartbreaking to see the 210 in that "holster" .

The M17 and M18 have a manual safety similar to a 1911

__________________
Dick

Why? It works great.

An expensive gun doesn’t need an expensive holster.

__________________
Rule of law, not a man.

Have you actually read the complaint?

While I hate just pulling a line or two from it since you really need to read everything to get a good idea of what's going on (including any documents being referenced) the complaint states:

"Failing to use due care in designing and manufacturing the P320’s internal components
and by omitting a mechanical disconnect switch to prevent un-intended discharge;"

Saying it's centered around a "trigger safety" really is not accurate, although I have to admit I have not read through the transcripts and don't know the specific arguments that were presented.

Of course I'm still waiting for someone to actually explain how this is happening without the trigger being pulled accidently, and how the striker safety is being defeated if the trigger was not pulled.

Here's a link to the complaint:
https://npr.brightspotcdn.com/cd/1a/...-complaint.pdf

If it is a design failure why hasn’t anyone replicated the “failure”? Holsters have been identified as one issue and the holster manufacturer agreed. And comments like “I’m an expert and wouldn’t own a P320” are opinions and rather useless unless the rationale (facts only, not opinions) is identified.

From what I have read and watched some of the videos, it seems that it is a combination of the holster and the gun. Granted, you can argue the holster is at fault, but if the holster is completely to blame, why are not other guns having the same problem in that same holster? It seems to me that if others are not having the same issue, they have done something right you haven't. Saying it only happens if x, y, z, but no one else has the issue, then you have something wrong. Figure it out. Or put a warning with the guns saying to not use X brand/model holster with this gun.

Rosewood

From your perspective, what is the issue with the 320's mechanism that's troublesome? I have a number of Sigs, including a 320. But the 320 dustup makes it a range toy for me. I don't know a thing about the how's and why's so I'd like to get a reading from someone close to the issue.

My Google Fu is weak this morning, otherwise I would direct you to the article I read that had details on how the sear and striker mechanisms of the P320 operate. From what I recall it is quite complicated. All of that complication was to eliminate the need for a trigger dingus.

__________________
Release the Kraken

I was looking for the opinion of the armorer in the above post. First hand experience. I can also run google like the best of us!

Many thanks for the link to the complaint. Here is the holster in question:

DualPoint™ AIWB Holster - BlackPoint Tactical

The complainant alleges he carried at 4:00; good thing he didn't carry as blackpoint builds the holster for, which is high noon (AIWB).

Im my experience, a pistol without a manual safety (the trigger block is a passive safety) is a danger in a holster. I have a lengthy blog post on my own blog (can't post the link here) pointing out that just because the profile of a striker pistol is similar to a 1911, holsters don't ADD safety to the carry of one as it does to the 1911; it subtracts from safety.

And another lengthy blog post about AIWB carry, which I call *** carry because a pistol must never be carried pointed at its wearer. Before my retirement I had stopped building for striker pistols w/out safeties, because of the danger of combining them.

Attached Images

th.jpg (8.0 KB, 20 views)

__________________
The Holstorian

My agency (who had been in SIG Classic series since going to auto loaders in the early 90s; first .45 P220s then .40 P226s) decided about 2013ish to transition to a new gun. As senior Firearms Instructor I was tasked with this by the Sheriff and Major, and told to select a "committee" of officers from both sexes and different sizes and backgrounds. At the time the only guns we were given options on and had T&E samples of were the G22 .40 and the SIG P226 E2 Elite in .40. Since many officers carry Glocks off duty, me, the Sheriff, and the Major all assumed it would be the Glock. We had about 4 range sessions over different days, and presented the guns as unbiased and unweighted as we could (and even final votes were anonymous, however most folks openly shared their opinions). The G22 was the almost unanimous choice and I took this back to the Major. He is a good man but he is a big SIG guy (or was then) and he told me he wanted to "table" the test and decision until we could test the new P320 when it arrived.

We got two in on T&E and they ran like champs. Both guns fired at least 1200 rounds each, and were never cleaned. They were also more accurate for every officer than the P226 or the G22, given the awesome trigger. I was on the fence, and took one last magazine out to the 25 yard line, and with a witness I fired one round (granted, very slowly) and it cut the "X" in the dead center of the bullseye. We chose the P320, but it took a while to get 100 guns.

In the meantime, my brother-in-law in Georgia was looking to trade his well-worn G23 and called asking my advice. I told him about the P320 and how it had "wowed" all of our firearms instructors and deputies that shot it so he bought one in a store in GA. He called back a few days later and asked "Why do you hate me?" I was confused and he said that the P320 wouldn't even fire an entire magazine of anything but ball ammo, and would sometimes hiccup on that. He said he, nor even the staff at the range, could fire it without malfunctions. I told him it was obviously a lemon and how to go about sending it back to SIG. He did, and got it back two or three weeks later, with a list of changes (I think barrel and extractor?) He took it back to the range and STILL Had malfunctions. He AGAIN sent it to SIG. We still did not have any of our P320s, but I called our SIG rep and he said he would handle this. He "had the gun brought over to the law enforcement side" where he said he could better address it, and had a senior gunsmith handle it. My BIL got it back in a couple weeks and that thing never missed a beat. It fed anything you loaded in it. After my BILs unexpected death in 2015 I inherited this pistol and it was flawless.

We did get our agency guns in and began transition training, and all FIs were given free "Armorer" training on the P320 (we were all already SIG Classic Series armorers). During transition qualification, some guns did have malfunctions, but it didn't seem extreme...AT FIRST. After all, these were new guns fresh off the drawing board and I guess we figured we were Beta testers. MY gun never had a problem-I think it may have had a couple of "slow feeds" where I nudged the rear of the slide but that went away after 100 rounds. Others however were bad enough that the Major issued them another gun and took theirs to be inspected or sent back. We finally got through quals and were carrying them. Then I starting hearing the SWAT guys (far and away our highest round count shooters with monthly training and the annual SWAT competition) griping about them "jamming." The issues were across the board also-not one noteworthy problem. Different guns, or sometimes the SAME guns were Fail To Feed, Fail To Eject, Slow Feeds, and possibly a couple of Fail to Fires(?). SWAT guys running shields noted a higher number of problems as they shoot around the shield in a sideways cant ("gangster" cant in the movies.)

The guns affected were sent back to SIG and returned. Some indicated changes had been made, and some just said "Inspected-Found to be within specifications". The next spring during departmental quals, regular officers were experiencing malfunctions at a much higher rate than we had ever seen.

SIG then told us that our guns were victims of "tolerance stacking" and they would replace all our frames for us. We had to arrange for the entire department to come by the range while the reps were there which is HUGE headache, but then they gave enough to one of our FIs that he did the rest over several days. We STILL had problems. Then SIG replaced the BARRELS for us. Still, malfunctions continued.

In 2015 or 2015 we finally called SIG and the distributor and told them to come get every P320 we'd bought and the Major was a real hard butt on them and told them they had better give us the full value we had paid for them, and not to try and credit us with used prices.

By then, upper management, even higher than me (lieutenant/senior FI) had decided we were going to 9mm. We went to the G17 and I retired at the end of 2018. My department is immensely happy with them. There has only been one shooting and the 124 grain Gold Dot dropped the BG like a rifle.

Regarding the unintended discharges (and to continue on my last post):

We THANKFULLY didn't have any of those but we began hearing about them firing when dropped, and going off unintentionally. We heard of them on news outlets, word of mouth, and I think one agency may have even sent a PIN message (teletype) about them.

I-like everyone else-kind of assumed that these were actually NEGLIGENT discharges...i.e. booger picker inside the trigger guard when it should not have been. But the stories did continue to appear-MUCH higher than with any other brand to include Glock. I recall one female officer had hers in her PURSE and it went off. After a while I began to believe there WAS merit to the suggestion there was a design flaw.

In my admittedly not all-knowing understanding-the Glock system striker rests in a "halfway" position and requires the trigger pull to draw the striker the rest of the way back and then release it, whereas the P320 system is in a "fully cocked" position, and the trigger only RELEASES the striker (much closer to a traditional DA/SA autoloader in SA with the hammer cocked and a trigger pull only releases it's grasp on the sear notch.) I know from my time with the P320 and being an armorer on it that the trigger is EXCEPTIONAL...that's a MAJOR selling point! But I think equating it with a Glock striker gun is NOT RIGHT-it should be viewed as a COCKED P226. There is almost no perceptible takeup and a crisp and light trigger pull.

Also, SIG offered the "voluntary upgrade" where they realized that without the trigger dingus the trigger had enough mass to move through the sear if it fell on the back of the slide, and should have made that a recall but they didn't and now they are committed in stone to denying it's an issue. Heck there are videos on YT of people dropping them and they discharge, in trying to recreate other unintended discharges.

There are LOTS of complaints of this resulting in unintentional discharges (35+ I would guess). I'm sure one or two might be actually NEGLIGENT discharges, but I think the vast majority are valid.

I'm a poster on one other forum but scan many other gun forums. It seems like lots of people doubt this or claim they ALL are NDs. Many while correctly pointing out that most cops aren't gun saavy, take it further and suggest they are all careless lying cops that report this, and the non-LE folks are likewise careless and lying and therefore it's all "misinformation" because of SIG envy and brand jealousy.

I think on the forums it's because of a formula based on "I LOVE SIG", "I hate cops and any chance to insult or demean them I'm going to" and "I personally haven't experienced this". You can often spot the different categories of posters-the "SIG Fan Till Death", the "Cop Hater", the "I love my P320 so everyone else can kiss it". the "I am remaining open minded" guy (rare), and the "There's too many of these to NOT be a 'thing' " posters. It's NOT as bad here as another forum I'm on, but go back and you'll see...

There is one video that involves officers dealing with a subject that came into their PD lobby in the NE. It looks like they have arrested him and he is refusing to move (?) so the officer in question reaches down to either search him or pick his legs up to carry him (?) and his holstered P320 discharges. No one is hurt but everyone is now AWAKE! SIG reviewed this and released their rebuttal and findings, stating in an unequivocal tone that the gun was NOT SECURE in the holster, and therefore IN WAY SIG's problem. It was 100% a holster issue. They even released captured "stills" from the video showing the ALS hood on his duty holster was down, and they were adamant that this was the cause-not the P320 (even thought this was like the 30th report of this issue.)

Well sorry to tell them but they are wrong. Almost every LEO I have talked with agree that the "hood" to the holster they CLAIM was down and they point to with an arrow in their rebuttal still pictures is a CAT Tourniquet (specifically the white tab that you are supposed to mark the time of application on) in an 1110 Gear (or similar) tourniquet holder than mounts to the front of the duty holster:

RIGID TQ Case(R) Holster Mount - 1110Gear.com

So yes...I personally believe very strongly that this is an issue that hopefully will get corrected. Still...like a defense attorney in closing remarks after judge and jury have heard damning and overwhelming evidence, I hear some people saying they move for a dismissal as "there is no evidence and it has never been recreated."