$11M Verdict Fuels SIG Sauer P320 Safety Debate

$11 Million Verdict Awarded Against SIG Sauer, Company Expresses Intent to Appeal

In the legal sphere, the recent litigation surrounding SIG Sauer P320 has captured significant attention. A man was given an $11 million payout after his P320 reportedly went off while still in its holster. Yet, this snapshot captures just a portion of the entire narrative.

Exploring the P320's Evolution and History

Known for revered, hammer-fired pistol models such as the P226 and M11A1, SIG Sauer ventured into the world of striker-fired handguns later in their career. The disavowed P250 design emerged as a double-action-only polymer frame firearm equipped with a noticeably heavy trigger mechanism. Despite the discontinuation and eventual erasure of the P250 from the public's memory, it did not face any legal battles or pose safety concerns.

Born out of the P250, the P320 shares aesthetically with its predecessor but possesses defining differences, such as the striker assembly shroud, unlike the P250's exposed hammer. The P320 quickly garnered a substantial base of users, with civilians and law enforcement both endorsing it. Its spotlight moment came when the US Army selected the M17/M18 series for its standard-issue handgun.

Yet, the P320's design came under harsh criticism when one of the firearms discharged upon being dropped at a specific angle. Questions surged when the M17's upgraded trigger system, absent in commercial models, was discovered. SIG Sauer's response was a Voluntary Upgrade Program to retrofit P320 components, including triggers, strikers, sears, and a new mechanical disconnector.

Unraveling the Abrahams v. Sig Sauer Case

Embarked in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas in June 2022, the Abrahams v. Sig Sauer case led to serious allegations. The plaintiff, a US Army veteran, claimed his holstered P320 discharged while in his zipped athletic pants pocket, resulting in injuries to his leg.

Crucially, the lawsuit contends that Mr. Abrahams could not have triggered the firearm as it was secured within both a holster and a zipped pocket. Unlike other cases involving law enforcement incidents involving open carry, this pattern diverges considerably. Notably, Sig Sauer had previously issued a notice following a 2017 incident mentioning that vibrational disturbances could possibly impact the firearm's safety mechanisms.

The case concluded with the jury awarding $11 million to Mr. Abrahams after a three-week trial. The judgment was the first-ever against P320.

SIG's Retort and the Path Ahead

In response to the ruling, SIG Sauer expressed their intent to appeal. The company's statement implied that the significant nature of the verdict, combined with its potential influence on subsequent P320 lawsuits, motivates this appeal.

The company is also preparing to submit a motion for judgment in its favor, effectively countering the jury's findings. However, succeeding with this request requires surpassing a formidable legal standard, as the motion requires a bulk of supporting evidence.

Meanwhile, the law firm representing Abrahams plans to commence another P320 case in Massachusetts come 2025. The same firm helped another plaintiff secure a $2.35 million verdict against SIG Sauer concerning a P320 discharge mishap. On a different note, The National Fraternal Order of Police petitioned for P320 safety information on behalf of law enforcement personnel following the P320's ban from Washington's law enforcement training ranges after two holstered discharge incidents.

As litigation around P320 proceeds, the final chapters of this legal narrative are yet to be written.