$11 Million Jury Award in Firearm Defect Case

Lawyers

— What It Means for Product Liability Plaintiffs

Headline / Lead
A Philadelphia jury recently awarded $11 million to a U.S. Army veteran whose holstered Sig Sauer P320 pistol discharged while he descended stairs, injuring his leg. AP News The ruling underscores the growing litigation risk for firearm manufacturers and may signal a wave of stronger claims in product-liability and design-defect cases.

Commentary by Attorney Lombardi

What is written in this post is not Iowa law. This is a case in Philadelphia and another in Georgia. Nevertheless it is interesting because of the theory of recovery that obviously worked at the trial court level. Iowa tends to be conservative in approaching novel legal theories and application to the Second Amendment-type issues. In this case “more than 100 people have come forward to make similar allegations about the P320. Sig Sauer insists the gun is safe.” Robert Zimmerman is the plaintiff’s lawyer. Just as in most litigation Sig Sauer tried blaming the plaintiff. But, apparently there is also a case in Georgia involving the P320 in federal court where the jury awarded the plaintiff damages. The law firm representing several of these plaintiffs is Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky. Now the appeals will be filed.

A Pattern Speaks

The Pattern Speaks

Once is chance, or so they say,
A stumble on a crowded day.
Twice may pass as accident,
A harmless slip without intent.

But three, and whispers start to grow,
The seeds of doubt begin to show.
Four repeats the same excuse—
The thread of truth grows faint, and loose.

By five the chorus starts to rise:
Too many mirrors, same disguise.
Each echoed tale, each “not my fault,”
Sounds more like fiction, in a tort.

And when the count climbs past them all,
No random fate, no fluke so tall
Could mask the truth in patterned cries:
A denier’s oath is wrapped in lies.

Like all similar claims I would strongly suggest not trying to reinvent the wheel. If there is a law firm that is winning, then get on their horse.

Facts & Legal Claims

• The plaintiff had the P320 pistol holstered when it unexpectedly discharged, inflicting serious injury. AP News

• His suit alleged that the gun (or holster design) was defective — i.e. unsafe under normal use or prone to accidental discharge — and that Sig Sauer was negligent in design, manufacture, and/or warning. AP News

• The company plans to appeal; it maintains that its design is safe and that this verdict is inconsistent with broader patterns. AP News

• This is not an isolated case: more than 100 similar complaints have been made concerning the P320 model, putting pressure on Sig Sauer to consider recalls or modifications. AP News

Legal & Strategic Implications

1. Heightened scrutiny of firearm safety
   The verdict signals that juries and courts may increasingly hold firearm makers accountable for latent defects, particularly in semi-automatic models. Plaintiffs will be emboldened to push design-defect and failure-to-warn theories.

2. Precedent weight in future cases
   Though appellate or higher court rulings will matter, large jury awards create negotiating leverage and may shift how insurers and manufacturers approach settlement offers.

3. Regulatory & recall momentum
   In parallel with litigation, regulatory agencies and advocacy groups may intensify pressure for mandatory safety modifications or recalls — especially when firearms—like the P320—are implicated multiple times.

4. Evidence and expert testimony
   To win, plaintiffs must marshal rigorous expert proof (e.g. mechanical engineering, safety testing) demonstrating the defect and causal link to the injury. Manufacturers will counter with alternative theories (user misuse, intervening events, proper use defense).

5. Defense strategy and appeal risks
   Sig Sauer’s appeal may argue (a) the verdict misapplied design-defect doctrine, (b) proximate causation, (c) instructions or jury errors, or (d) limitations on damages. The outcome on appeal could shape broader doctrine.

Gun safety does not always work

Takeaway for Plaintiffs & Practitioners
If you represent a client injured by an allegedly defective firearm or product, this case shows that juries may award substantial damages — even where use was “normal” (holstered). Cultivating strong expert testimony, emphasizing defect theory, and showing that the manufacturer had notice (or warnings) will be critical.