Sig found liable for gun discharge

[Big Dave in WNC]

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."

 

[Neumann]

You only need to convince a simple majority of the jury in a civil case. Juries consist of laymen, easily swayed by an emotional arguments. Even so-called experts, including newsmen and social workers, are easily persuaded in lieu of technical or practical knowledge.

 

[BE Mike]

Then there is this: https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/...-airmans-shooting-death-involving-m18-pistol/

 

[Claymore33]

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.

I do not want any gun that I cannot carry in Condition One

 

[65-2x2]

A jury verdict is meaningful, but does not answer the question to whether Sig has a dangerous gun or not. The same jury may have awarded the same amount of money to an injured owner of J-Frame S&W because it doesn't have a functioning safety. Juries are often quite generous with what I call OPM, pronounced "opium" (Other People's Money).

The longer that Sig lets this play out, the more it will cost them. They have apparently not gotten to the point that the civil trials are hurting sufficiently to either admit that they have a problem and propose a fix, prove that their guns are not dangerous to the satisfaction of the buying public, or go belly-up. I believe that the problem will resolve itself sooner rather than later because the amublance chasers, smelling blood, will nickel and dime Sig to death otherwise.

 

[gdnagle]

IIRC the last 4 presidential elections they voted blue and also new hampsire is known to be a anti 2A state so two strike against firearms just like the west coast anything dealing with firearms the will not give a honest verdict just my opinion

 

[oneeyedpete]

You only need to convince a simple majority of the jury in a civil case. Juries consist of laymen, easily swayed by an emotional arguments. Even so-called experts, including newsmen and social workers, are easily persuaded in lieu of technical or practical knowledge.

Common misconception. Only 27 states allow non-unanimous jury verdicts in civil cases and most of those require a super majority, like 9 out of 12. In cases like this, the jury members don't need to be experts. Most witnesses on each side will be firearm experts and the decision will turn on their relative credibility as assessed by the jury.

 

[MyTurn]

Unfortunately, juries tend to side with perceived sympathetic victims and not with corporations, insurance companies and other perceived greedy deep pockets. As a result, you get decisions against the latter despite the evidence or maybe because of the evidence (serious and disabling or disfiguring injuries). Juries decide based on emotions and often because they can't understand or refuse to accept the evidence. Thus, you get the absurd and disgusting huge awards that jurors perceive as punishing the big guys. This is based on my experience as an attorney.

 

[nll401]

IIRC the last 4 presidential elections they voted blue and also new hampsire is known to be a anti 2A state so two strike against firearms just like the west coast anything dealing with firearms the will not give a honest verdict just my opinion

New Hampshire State Gun Laws and Regulations Explained | NRA-ILA

Find state gun laws including conceal carry, open carry, licensing, and more.

www.nraila.org

 

[RebCop]

Good the gun is flawed.

 

[jack zeller]

IIRC the last 4 presidential elections they voted blue and also new hampsire is known to be a anti 2A state so two strike against firearms just like the west coast anything dealing with firearms the will not give a honest verdict just my opinion

Untrue. NH is very free for gun owners. Constitutional carry, etc. Where did you get THAT idea???

 

[BB57]

You only need to convince a simple majority of the jury in a civil case. Juries consist of laymen, easily swayed by an emotional arguments. Even so-called experts, including newsmen and social workers, are easily persuaded in lieu of technical or practical knowledge.

Common misconception. Only 27 states allow non-unanimous jury verdicts in civil cases and most of those require a super majority, like 9 out of 12. In cases like this, the jury members don't need to be experts. Most witnesses on each side will be firearm experts and the decision will turn on their relative credibility as assessed by the jury.

I think there is also some confusion about standard of evidence:

There is "preponderance of the evidence" , normally used in simple civil cases This means the jury must be persuaded by the evidence that the claim [or affirmative defense] is more probably true than not true. This is the evidence equivalent of a simple majority> A unanimous verdict is usually still required, but it's a lot easier to get.
It's also normally only used in fairly low level civil cases.

Then there is a "clear and convincing standard of evidence. It means that the plaintiff must present evidence that leaves the jurors with a firm belief or conviction that it is highly probable that the factual contentions of the claim or defense are true.

This standard of evidence is used in most civil liability cases, and it requires a much higher burden of proof.

When we have a jury making a unanimous verdict to this standard of evidence, it's a pretty compelling argument that Sig has a defective product. Add in a 100 or so instances of claimed uncommanded discharges by some pretty credible sources, and add 30 plus verdicts against Sig - its telling shooters they'd be ill advised to trust a Sig P320.

At some point Sig's attorneys are going to start arguing "everyone knows it's got a safety issue, but this guy chose to carry it with a loaded chamber anyway, so it's on him". And to be honest if I were on the jury, I'd consider that a pretty valid legal defense.

A jury came very close to that conclusion in a recent case where they agreed the Sig P320 fired all by itself, but denied any compensatory or punitive damages because of the way the victim chose to carry it (just stuck in his belt). I don't have any issues with that. Do stupid things, win stupid prizes.

---

I do however agree juries can be easily swayed. But it's more likely to occur in criminal cases.

Grand jurors and jurors overall often go into a case thinking the defendant must be guilty because the police arrested him and the DA charged him. When in truth the police involved just arrested him so the court could sort it out, and the DA, doubting the validity of the case and or sufficiency of the evidence pursued it as they don't want to be viewed as soft on crime and the defendant refused to plea bargain.

There has been substantial research using mock trials in courtrooms with real judges and attorneys trying cases thrown out before trial for lack of evidence using actors are defendant and witnesses and about 80% end in a totally non warranted guilty verdict.

In addition, once in the court room, a couple things can happen in the case. There may be some very compelling and valid extenuating circumstances. However, the jury may be instructed that their role is to determine whether the letter of law was violated or not, not whether the defendants actions were "right" or "wrong".

That's a very narrow read interpretation that while wide spread is contrary to the very purpose of a jury trial, where all of those factors that cannot be envisioned and written into law can be considered by a jury of the defendant's peers. Unfortunately, anyone who expresses a concern like that in jury selection (or in searchable social media) will be dismissed over concerns of jury nullification.

Similarly, the DA may over charge the defendant and leave no option for a lesser, appropriate charge. The strategy usually works as the jury, left with the option of convicting on an excessive charge, or letting the defendant go free, will choose to convict.

For example, I saw a clear case of aggravated assault (where the victim subsequently died due to gross medical malpractice) be charged and convicted of first degree murder with the DA actually seeking the death penalty. He wanted to be the first DA in the state to fry someone under the re implemented death penalty and it was the only case he had.

 

[BB57]

Untrue. NH is very free for gun owners. Constitutional carry, etc. Where did you get THAT idea???

Agreed.

Without out implying any thing p word related, NH is a conservative state in the true, traditional anti-regulatory, stay out of people's business sense of the word. While it has voted a particular way in the last six presidential elections, its always been by very narrow margins. That's largely because the largest segment of voters (39 percent) are registered as "undeclared".

They take the "live free or die" thing pretty seriously and vote accordingly, whether the issue is guns or gay marriage. Live and let live.

 

[BB57]

Unfortunately, juries tend to side with perceived sympathetic victims and not with corporations, insurance companies and other perceived greedy deep pockets. As a result, you get decisions against the latter despite the evidence or maybe because of the evidence (serious and disabling or disfiguring injuries). Juries decide based on emotions and often because they can't understand or refuse to accept the evidence. Thus, you get the absurd and disgusting huge awards that jurors perceive as punishing the big guys. This is based on my experience as an attorney.

That hasn't been my experience. I've seen juries massively under compensate legitimate victims. There are always sensationalised exceptions, but those don't become the average or the norm.

 

[BB57]

Then there is this: https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/...-airmans-shooting-death-involving-m18-pistol/

There are a couple ways to look at this.

1) Objectively and legitimately, if it proves to be the case that this single incident did in fact prove to be an intentional act with purposeful, reckless, knowing, or just negligent intent, it does absolutely nothing to prove all the other recorded incidents were also negligent or reckless.

People, agencies and departments were already uncomfortable with the likelihood of uncommanded discharges with the P320. This high profile case certainly pushed people farther down the track, but nullifying the case, won't do anything to back those opinions up farther than they are ready were before it occurred.

2) Having spent 12 years as a fed I am also well aware of the effects of the sunk cost fallacy, particularly when careers and costs are involved. And both are at stake if the USAF has to spend $22 million to replace its M18s.

It's not hard to imagine there's substantial command pressure to be able to blame this on an airman purposeful, reckless, knowing, or negligent, or even on an airman with poor training. The consequences of that are far less costly to the USAF and commanders involved. Consequently, I'll refrain from exonerating Sig in this particular instance until I see how this all plays out in the possible court martial

 

[BE Mike]

There are a couple ways to look at this.

1) Objectively and legitimately, if it proves to be the case that this single incident did in fact prove to be an intentional act with purposeful, reckless, knowing, or just negligent intent, it does absolutely nothing to prove all the other recorded incidents were also negligent or reckless.

People, agencies and departments were already uncomfortable with the likelihood of uncommanded discharges with the P320. This high profile case certainly pushed people farther down the track, but nullifying the case, won't do anything to back those opinions up farther than they are ready were before it occurred.

2) Having spent 12 years as a fed I am also well aware of the effects of the sunk cost fallacy, particularly when careers and costs are involved. And both are at stake if the USAF has to spend $22 million to replace its M18s.

It's not hard to imagine there's substantial command pressure to be able to blame this on an airman purposeful, reckless, knowing, or negligent, or even on an airman with poor training. The consequences of that are far less costly to the USAF and commanders involved. Consequently, I'll refrain from exonerating Sig in this particular instance until I see how this all plays out in the possible court martial

I'm also in a wait and see mode.

 

[BE Mike]

There is a lot of speculation about Sigs and some is pure hogwash. One thing is for sure, lawyers can easily switch back and forth regarding their support or distain of any case depending on who is paying. Another thing is that lawyers can get extremely verbose where a few words would do. Look at the thousands of pages of laws drawn up by the lawyers in the beltway.

 

[Law-dog]

There is a lot of speculation about Sigs and some is pure hogwash. One thing is for sure, lawyers can easily switch back and forth regarding their support or distain of any case depending on who is paying. Another thing is that lawyers can get extremely verbose where a few words would do. Look at the thousands of pages of laws drawn up by the lawyers in the beltway.

LOL, Part of that wordy problem is that what you think words means is just simply wrong. What you think is common sense, is simply wrong. You are just wrong on so many things, that lawyers have to use lots of words to clarify so everybody understands.

And then there are those other guys who think the same word means something else, it takes a lot of words, to explain why he is so wrong too.

Point is, words change and meaning changes. Think about these very complicated words, "shall not be infringed". What does that mean? We all have an opinion. Some think that means every 18 year old should have the right to buy and possess hand grenades and full auto weapons. Some think that just means guns that were already in production in 1791. Others have different opinions, and what they think is a common understanding or common sense, are just very different things.

As a practical matter the Constitution only gives one gang the power to decide what those words mean, the gang known as the Courts. And lawyers come along and try and convince the courts depending on which side of the issue they are on. And like a surgery, they cover all the tiny basis, so nothing is missed, that is where these 30 page legal briefs come in. Actually, that is a limit put on by the Courts or they might me 10,000 pages long.

Just saying. Sometimes lawyers are trying to defeat some long established rule of law, and it take lots of pages to cover all angles.

As to those wordy laws passed by Congress, I agree, no excuse for the size of that krap. No one in Congress has the time to read and analyze all those issues at the last minute when they come up for vote.

 

[margethatcher]

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"....

Iver Johnson had that trigger dingle a hundred years ago.

 

[RebCop]

I think there is also some confusion about standard of evidence:

There is "preponderance of the evidence" , normally used in simple civil cases This means the jury must be persuaded by the evidence that the claim [or affirmative defense] is more probably true than not true. This is the evidence equivalent of a simple majority> A unanimous verdict is usually still required, but it's a lot easier to get.
It's also normally only used in fairly low level civil cases.

Then there is a "clear and convincing standard of evidence. It means that the plaintiff must present evidence that leaves the jurors with a firm belief or conviction that it is highly probable that the factual contentions of the claim or defense are true.

This standard of evidence is used in most civil liability cases, and it requires a much higher burden of proof.

When we have a jury making a unanimous verdict to this standard of evidence, it's a pretty compelling argument that Sig has a defective product. Add in a 100 or so instances of claimed uncommanded discharges by some pretty credible sources, and add 30 plus verdicts against Sig - its telling shooters they'd be ill advised to trust a Sig P320.

At some point Sig's attorneys are going to start arguing "everyone knows it's got a safety issue, but this guy chose to carry it with a loaded chamber anyway, so it's on him". And to be honest if I were on the jury, I'd consider that a pretty valid legal defense.

A jury came very close to that conclusion in a recent case where they agreed the Sig P320 fired all by itself, but denied any compensatory or punitive damages because of the way the victim chose to carry it (just stuck in his belt). I don't have any issues with that. Do stupid things, win stupid prizes.

---

I do however agree juries can be easily swayed. But it's more likely to occur in criminal cases.

Grand jurors and jurors overall often go into a case thinking the defendant must be guilty because the police arrested him and the DA charged him. When in truth the police involved just arrested him so the court could sort it out, and the DA, doubting the validity of the case and or sufficiency of the evidence pursued it as they don't want to be viewed as soft on crime and the defendant refused to plea bargain.

There has been substantial research using mock trials in courtrooms with real judges and attorneys trying cases thrown out before trial for lack of evidence using actors are defendant and witnesses and about 80% end in a totally non warranted guilty verdict.

In addition, once in the court room, a couple things can happen in the case. There may be some very compelling and valid extenuating circumstances. However, the jury may be instructed that their role is to determine whether the letter of law was violated or not, not whether the defendants actions were "right" or "wrong".

That's a very narrow read interpretation that while wide spread is contrary to the very purpose of a jury trial, where all of those factors that cannot be envisioned and written into law can be considered by a jury of the defendant's peers. Unfortunately, anyone who expresses a concern like that in jury selection (or in searchable social media) will be dismissed over concerns of jury nullification.

Similarly, the DA may over charge the defendant and leave no option for a lesser, appropriate charge. The strategy usually works as the jury, left with the option of convicting on an excessive charge, or letting the defendant go free, will choose to convict.

For example, I saw a clear case of aggravated assault (where the victim subsequently died due to gross medical malpractice) be charged and convicted of first degree murder with the DA actually seeking the death penalty. He wanted to be the first DA in the state to fry someone under the re implemented death penalty and it was the only case he had.

Also add in the videos showing it happen over and over.