$11 Million Verdict In P320 Lawsuit, SIG Sauer Plans To Appeal

We are back on the legal beat again, this time with another bout of Sig Sauer P320 litigation. A jury awarded $11 million to a man who claims his P320 fired while it was holstered. But there is more to the story than that, so let’s break down the details

Sig Sauer @ TFB:

[SIG Sauer 2023] SIG Sauer MCX Spear in 6.5 Creedmoor The Rimfire Report: SIG Sauer 522 Classic Overview SIG Sauer Introduce P320-M17 Ceremonial Pistols SIG Sauer Releases P322-COMP Pistol SILENCER SATURDAY #325: Small Simplicity – SIG Sauer SLX556C

Disclaimer: I am an attorney, but I am not your attorney. Do not make any decisions about what you should do based on what I share in this article.

Background

The Sig Sauer P320 is a striker-fired pistol built on the P250 design. Sig Sauer is best known for hammer-fired classics like the P226 and M11A1 and came a little later to the striker-fired game. The P250 was a double-action-only polymer frame pistol with a rather heavy trigger. That pistol is now discontinued and mostly forgotten, but there was no spate of lawsuits or safety questions around the P250.

Sig Sauer developed the P320 from the P250, and they are almost indistinguishable without looking at the rear of the slide. The P320 has a shroud covering a striker assembly whereas the P250 had an opening and a hammer. Unlike the P250, the P320 quickly gained a large user base and sold very well among both civilian and law enforcement users. The greatest success of the P320 series was when the US Army adopted the M17/M18 family (which adds a thumb safety not present on commercial guns) as its new standard-issue handgun.

Around the time of the M17 winning the Modular Handgun System trials, Sig Sauer was hit with a barrage of negative attention after a P320 was shown firing when dropped at a specific angle. That scrutiny intensified when people discovered that the M17 had an upgraded trigger system that addressed the suspected cause of firing when dropped. People were not happy, and Sig Sauer announced a Voluntary Upgrade Program to retrofit P320 triggers, strikers, and sears, and to add a new mechanical disconnector.

Facts Of The Case

This particular case, Abrahams v. Sig Sauer, was filed in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas in June 2022. It opens with some serious allegations, including that the “P320 is the most dangerous pistol” and that “well over 75 users” have been victims of unintended discharges. The complaint (the first document in a lawsuit, which lists the plaintiff’s side of the story and what damages the plaintiff seeks) explains that Mr. Abrahams, a US Army veteran, placed his P320 in the holster provided by Sig Sauer with the gun, then zipped it up in the pocket of his athletic pants. As Mr. Abraham went down the stairs his gun discharged and struck him in the leg, injuring his quad and knee.

The complaint points out that there is no way that Mr. Abraham could have touched the trigger of a pistol that was inside a holster inside a zipped-up pocket. This is a different fact scenario than the lawsuits coming out of law enforcement incidents, where the pistols are carried openly in duty holsters where objects could become lodged, or where the gun is subject to rougher handling. Pages 11 through 18 recount a laundry list of law enforcement P320 “uncommanded firing” incidents.

The lawsuit also includes various excerpts from Sig Sauer manuals and marketing materials, like this:

Sig Sauer apparently added this notice sometime after a 2017 incident, and it notes that vibration or other conditions may “have a negative effect on [the] safety mechanisms”. The lawsuit also includes a marketing image where Sig advertised that a “tabbed” trigger (aka a trigger dongle as seen on Glock, HK, and Springfield Armory, among others) would be available, but was never actually sold.

The claims in this lawsuit eventually went to a jury trial lasting three weeks (by way of background, three weeks is a hefty trial). That jury ultimately awarded $11 million to Mr. Abrahams. This was the first P320 case to go to a jury, and it may be a signal of how other juries could view similar fact patterns. But this is not the end of the story!

Sig’s Response

Sig Sauer put out a statement on their website making clear that this is not the end of the case. Sig intends to appeal, which is unsurprising given how large the verdict was, and how that verdict might affect other P320 lawsuits. The statement from Sig Sauer also points out that the jury found that Mr. Abrahams’ own negligence contributed to the incident and that the trigger was pulled rearward with at least seven pounds of force. It further notes that Mr. Abrahams “had never trained with or fired his [P320] before the discharge occurred despite having purchased it more than a year and a half before his accident.”

Sig also notes in its statement that it intends to file a motion for a judgement in its favor, notwithstanding what the jury found. A judge can grant that motion when the evidence does not support the jury’s finding, but it is a very high standard to meet.

What Happens Next?

The firm representing Abrahams in his lawsuit is taking another P320 case to trial in Massachusetts in 2025. That firm also represented a plaintiff in Georgia who won a $2.35 million judgment against Sig Sauer over a P320 discharge incident. There are somewhere around a hundred other P320 lawsuits at some stage of litigation, so there will be more cases to watch.

On another front, the National Fraternal Order of Police sent a letter to Sig Sauer CEO Ron Cohen asking for P320 safety information on behalf of police officers. That letter begins by pointing out that the agency that trains and licenses law enforcement officers in Washington has banned the P320 from their training ranges after two incidents where it is claimed that P320 pistols discharged while holstered.