SIG Sauer Found Liable in Shooting Accident

A Georgia jury concluded that the company failed to adequately warn consumers about the risk of its most popular gun, the P320, unintentionally discharging.

By Champe Barton | Jun 24, 2024

Georgia jury has found New Hampshire-based gunmaker SIG Sauer liable in the shooting of a man who claimed his P320 pistol fired when he did not pull the trigger. The jury also awarded him $2.35 million in damages.

It’s the second of several dozen lawsuits involving the company’s flagship handgun to go to trial, and the first in which a jury ruled that the gun was defectively designed.

On June 20, jurors in the Atlanta federal court found unanimously on all counts for Robert Lang of Roswell, Georgia, after deliberating for roughly nine hours. They concluded not only that SIG Sauer defectively designed the P320, but also that the company had failed to provide adequate warnings to consumers about the risk of unintended shootings.

The verdict comes amid a storm of controversy for SIG Sauer regarding its popular P320 handgun. In April 2023, The Trace and The Washington Post published an investigation revealing that more than 100 people had alleged their P320s fired without the trigger being pulled, and at least 80 people had been injured in the shootings. SIG Sauer has maintained that the incidents were the result of unsafe handling and that the P320 is safe to use.

In the year since the Post/Trace investigation, an additional 14 people have sued SIG Sauer, revealing another 13 injuries.

During the Georgia trial, Lang conceded that it’s possible an unknown object or pressure from his gun’s holster had manipulated the trigger, but he argued that a properly designed gun would possess safeties to prevent it from firing in such a situation, or at least be sold with warnings about the weapon’s sensitivity.

“I just hope that my verdict will be the tip of the spear,” Lang told The Trace after his trial concluded. “I hope that SIG will finally do what’s right and make sure no one dies from this defect.”

Lang was carrying the most up-to-date version of the P320 pistol — released after the company modified the design in 2017 — when he attempted to remove the holstered weapon from his belt after returning home from work one night in December 2018. As part of his usual routine, Lang loosened his belt and reached for the weapon’s grip. That’s when he says it fired, still fully secured in its holster and with his fingers flat against the holster’s belt clip, away from the trigger.

The bullet pierced the top of Lang’s thigh and barreled out just above his kneecap, he told The Trace. His wife and their 2-year-old son, both home at the time, screamed at the explosive crack. An ambulance arrived quickly and took Lang to the hospital, where he was treated and discharged the same night. He still suffers from sporadic nerve pain in his thigh and post traumatic stress, according to a medical expert hired by Lang’s lawyers.

Most of the money awarded as damages is intended to compensate Lang for past and future pain and suffering. The remainder — about $50,000 — will cover the medical expenses Lang incurred as a result of his injury, including those from a three-day stint in the intensive care unit after the wound became infected.

When The Trace reached out with questions about the case, Samantha Piatt, a SIG Sauer spokesperson, referred to a public statement saying that the company “strongly disagrees” with the verdict in Lang’s case and plans to appeal. “There are no facts on the record to support that Mr. Lang’s discharge claim was the result of anything other than his own negligent handling causing him to pull the trigger on the P320 pistol,” the statement reads. “SIG SAUER is extremely proud of our long history of producing high-quality firearms and our unwavering dedication to safety.”

In 2022, SIG Sauer won a jury trial in a lawsuit alleging a different defect in the P320. At least 12 other cases against the company have been dismissed.

Guns are one of the only products exempt from federal consumer product safety regulations. Despite the dangers posed by a malfunctioning firearm, no federal agency can investigate alleged defects or impose recalls when models are found to pose a safety hazard. When a gun malfunctions — even if a jury decides that the malfunction is the product of a design or manufacturing flaw — it is up to the weapon’s maker to investigate the problem and notify the public.

Lang’s verdict does not require SIG Sauer to recall the P320, to modify its design, or to inform the public about potential safety risks.

Results from testing on Lang’s pistol ahead of his trial showed that it took only 4.5 pounds of pressure on the gun’s trigger to cause it to fire — well under the 6 pounds of pressure promised to consumers in the gun’s manual. The trigger only needed to move a sixth of an inch — about the width of five credit cards — before discharging. In contrast, the trigger on a Glock handgun must travel more than twice as far, testing for the trial showed.

Jurors concluded that SIG Sauer was liable for Lang’s shooting because it had not designed the P320 with a special trigger safety like the one used on Glocks and many other similar guns. Trigger safeties are essentially small tabs on the face of a gun’s trigger that must be fully depressed before the trigger will move. They are designed to ensure guns don’t fire when dropped, or when indirect pressure, such as that from a holster, is applied.

At trial, SIG Sauer representatives said that original prototypes of the P320 came with trigger safeties, but the company did away with the model after a safety-less version passed a spate of widely used industry safety tests. SIG Sauer marketing materials have stated that the company would offer a version of the P320 with a trigger safety for sale, but it never did.

Additional testimony focused on inconsistencies around SIG Sauer’s description of the P320’s basic mechanism of firing. In product catalogs and brochures dating back to 2015, and later in deposition testimony, SIG Sauer has said that the P320 employs what’s called a double-action firing mechanism. Double-action guns work like bows and arrows: As the trigger is pulled, a metal pin inside the gun is drawn backward (action one) and then released (action two). The pin strikes the bullet, which causes the gun to fire.

Many firearms experts consider double-action guns safer than single-action guns — in which pressing the trigger only releases the pre-cocked bow, as it were — because they are less liable to discharge unintentionally.

During Lang’s trial, Sean Toner, who designed the P320, said that though he had testified in previous lawsuits that the P320 is a double-action gun, he now agreed that it is more accurately described as a single-action pistol. “It was kind of a recent thing that I’ve come to that conclusion,” Toner said, according to a transcript of his testimony.

The P320’s trigger and its firing mechanism featured in testimony about SIG Sauer’s 2017 “voluntary upgrade program.” That fall, video evidence emerged showing that the P320 would fire when dropped at certain angles. A day later, SIG Sauer announced it would change the design of the pistols, and that customers with the original model could return their guns free of charge to have the upgrade installed. The company has insisted that this program did not amount to a recall and maintains that the original model is safe to use. The original P320s are still available in some gun shops today.

CNN later reported that SIG Sauer had known about the drop fire issue at least a year before notifying the public. Lang’s attorneys argued that the early drop fire concerns, which had been discovered in 2016 during testing by the U.S. Army, should have prompted SIG Sauer to make changes to the gun’s design.

In response to The Trace’s earlier reporting on the P320, multiple members of Congress voiced their support for legislation that would grant consumer product safety oversight of firearms to the Consumer Product Safety Commission. But these efforts have stalled in committee.

“A jury’s decision to hold the gun manufacturer Sig Sauer accountable for its defective pistol has renewed urgency to pass my Firearms Safety Act,” said Congresswoman Robin Kelly, who represents northeast Illinois, including parts of Chicago. “It is absurd that the CPSC can regulate teddy bears — but not guns. The CPSC should be able to recall defective guns, just as they’re allowed to recall defective bicycles, batteries, and every other common household item.”

Robert Zimmerman, one of the attorneys representing Lang, is currently litigating lawsuits on behalf of more than 60 victims who accuse SIG Sauer of defectively designing the P320. He told The Trace he was pleased the jury had agreed that the weapon is “defective and dangerous.”

“We call upon Sig Sauer to redesign this pistol for the benefit of their law enforcement and private citizen customers,” he said, “and look forward to the many more trials to continue to hold Sig Sauer accountable.”

https://www.thetrace.org/2024/...wsuit-safety-issues/

quote:

During Lang’s trial, Sean Toner, who designed the P320, said that though he had testified in previous lawsuits that the P320 is a double-action gun, he now agreed that it is more accurately described as a single-action pistol. “It was kind of a recent thing that I’ve come to that conclusion,” Toner said, according to a transcript of his testimony.

And you're the designer?

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

During Lang’s trial, Sean Toner, who designed the P320, said that though he had testified in previous lawsuits that the P320 is a double-action gun, he now agreed that it is more accurately described as a single-action pistol. “It was kind of a recent thing that I’ve come to that conclusion,” Toner said, according to a transcript of his testimony.

And you're the designer?

Yeah, that's a strange statement. And I don't see how you could ever honestly liken the P320's action to a DA system. There are plenty of parallels to an SAO, but very little to support the other. Statements like that from the guy who designed the gun aren't going to do a lot to instill confidence in his credibility in front of a jury.

It'll be interesting to see what the outcome of this case is on a broader scale. I know this ruling doesn't mandate that Sig make changes to the design, but if they lose their appeal it's going to set a precedent that opens the floodgates for other litigants, and will probably force them to do something.

It's also interesting to me that this particular lawsuit isn't suggesting that the gun necessarily fired by itself...just that the design makes it easy to have an ND. As a result, they didn't have to identify a mechanical problem with the gun...just compare the design to other existing designs and convince the jury that it was less safe.

And I want to know more about the holster involved. Based on many examples, cops would shove a pistol into just about any crappy holster they could find cheap.

quote:

Jurors concluded that SIG Sauer was liable for Lang’s shooting because it had not designed the P320 with a special trigger safety like the one used on Glocks and many other similar guns. Trigger safeties are essentially small tabs on the face of a gun’s trigger that must be fully depressed before the trigger will move. They are designed to ensure guns don’t fire when dropped, or when indirect pressure, such as that from a holster, is applied.

At trial, SIG Sauer representatives said that original prototypes of the P320 came with trigger safeties, but the company did away with the model after a safety-less version passed a spate of widely used industry safety tests. SIG Sauer marketing materials have stated that the company would offer a version of the P320 with a trigger safety for sale, but it never did.

How many times have I pointed this out? A safety tab (or blade) on the trigger of the P320 would have saved SIG-Sauer a lot of grief.

^^^ Marketing guy probably managed to convince the boss not to be like Glock.

Dave Workman reports SIG intends to file an appeal. No surprise there.

http://www.thegunmag.com/sig-s...n-ga-liability-case/

I’m not the first to say it, but it’s interesting that these guns that just fire by themselves never do it while sitting in a safe or anywhere else unattended. Miraculously it’s always when someone is handling them.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:How many times have I pointed this out? A safety tab (or blade) on the trigger of the P320 would have saved SIG-Sauer a lot of grief.

You and me both.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

During Lang’s trial, Sean Toner, who designed the P320, said that though he had testified in previous lawsuits that the P320 is a double-action gun, he now agreed that it is more accurately described as a single-action pistol. “It was kind of a recent thing that I’ve come to that conclusion,” Toner said, according to a transcript of his testimony.

And you're the designer?

maybe he was remembering the time that he designed the P250. It's hard to keep up with all the Sig models.

quote:

Originally posted by MacGyver:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:How many times have I pointed this out? A safety tab (or blade) on the trigger of the P320 would have saved SIG-Sauer a lot of grief.

You and me both.

Sadly me as well. From the first time I handled a P320 I seriously thought this setup would have the potential to cause a lot of problems for SIG down the road. Hell, they initially showed the P320 at SHOT in configurations with and without the lever, so it does seem that early on in the design process of the P320 they at least gave some consideration about there being a potential issue.

The subsequent anecdotal evidence gleaned from just about every other striker gunmaker and what they did with their triggers also is just as telling. Their respective product liability teams chose to insist on including some sort of lockup at the trigger shoe, leaving SIG as the solitary outlier (well aside from Bersa, as far as I'm aware). Kind of feel sorry for them and their situation, yet I also kind of don't since I also feel that SIG came to this choice to go down their path because they really didn't want to be seen as merely copying what arch-rival Glock has always been doing.

quote:

Originally posted by monoblok:
...I also feel that SIG came to this choice to go down their path because they really didn't want to be seen as merely copying what arch-rival Glock has always been doing.

At the time, was Glock's patent on tabbed/dingus safety triggers still in effect? Isn't that why S&W went w/ hinged triggers on their M&P and SD pistols? If that was the case, then Sig must be kicking themselves for not paying that licensing fee.

Are P365s having ADs like the P320s? They don’t have a trigger safety either.

quote:

Originally posted by Dwill104:
Are P365s having ADs like the P320s? They don’t have a trigger safety either.

I haven’t heard of one, seems to be a 320 thing. An army MP was just shot in the foot by his own weapon when somebody bumped into his holster.

https://www.nhpr.org/nh-news/2...o-reason-for-concern

I honestly can’t believe that anyone would give sig the benefit of the doubt after they lied about the drop safe issue, and have yet to issue a recall.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

During Lang’s trial, Sean Toner, who designed the P320, said that though he had testified in previous lawsuits that the P320 is a double-action gun, he now agreed that it is more accurately described as a single-action pistol. “It was kind of a recent thing that I’ve come to that conclusion,” Toner said, according to a transcript of his testimony.

And you're the designer?

They keep pissing on the consumer and saying it’s rain.

quote:

Originally posted by monoblok:

quote:

Originally posted by MacGyver:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:How many times have I pointed this out? A safety tab (or blade) on the trigger of the P320 would have saved SIG-Sauer a lot of grief.

You and me both.

Sadly me as well. From the first time I handled a P320 I seriously thought this setup would have the potential to cause a lot of problems for SIG down the road. Hell, they initially showed the P320 at SHOT in configurations with and without the lever, so it does seem that early on in the design process of the P320 they at least gave some consideration about there being a potential issue.

The subsequent anecdotal evidence gleaned from just about every other striker gunmaker and what they did with their triggers also is just as telling. Their respective product liability teams chose to insist on including some sort of lockup at the trigger shoe, leaving SIG as the solitary outlier (well aside from Bersa, as far as I'm aware). Kind of feel sorry for them and their situation, yet I also kind of don't since I also feel that SIG came to this choice to go down their path because they really didn't want to be seen as merely copying what arch-rival Glock has always been doing.

I can't think of any reason why SIG ended up removing it from the final product. The only benefit I've noticed (I guess other than just having one fewer part) is enhanced comfort when shooting for extended periods of time. That's a pretty weak benefit considering there are plenty of striker-fired pistols with trigger blade safeties that sit flush when pressed, making them just as comfortable. So I can't imagine that being the reason SIG went this route. The designer was either intentionally full of it (or just an idiot) when he said that the P320 was more akin to a DAO. I'm more inclined to think it's the former (full of it) because the other option is too ridiculous. Anyone who is mechanically literate/inclined examining the P320's internals will realize that the pistol was designed by someone who knows exactly what they're doing. This makes the absence of a trigger blade safety even more strange. I don't know if I feel bad for SIG here. They did this to themselves in any case, and the out-of-spec pull weight on the specific pistol in question here didn't do them any favors (assuming it left the factory that way). On the other hand, it's still extremely unlikely for an ND to occur, even with the lack of a trigger blade safety. It's like when the 1911 started catching heat for not having a firing pin safety. It's better to have one, but there are very few (if any) documented instances of a 1911 having an ND when dropped. So I definitely still think the cop was most likely at fault (improper handling). In that case, I do sort of hope SIG wins on the appeal end just because of the dangers of yet another precedent enabling political agendas to decide which features for guns are appropriate or not. I think we can all agree that previous burdens placed on manufacturers made guns less safe to use.

As a side note, was it mentioned in the article whether or not the P320 in question was equipped with the manual safety?

I know I’m probably in the minority here but I am not a fan of the Sig P230 and P365 action. I love both guns, especially the P365, but the trigger just seems way too light for my tastes. I carried a Glock 19 for over a decade, and a P228 before that, so I don’t hate striker fired guns or guns without safeties but the P320 and P365 trigger just seemed too light and too easy to accidentally depress for me.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

During Lang’s trial, Sean Toner, who designed the P320, said that though he had testified in previous lawsuits that the P320 is a double-action gun, he now agreed that it is more accurately described as a single-action pistol. “It was kind of a recent thing that I’ve come to that conclusion,” Toner said, according to a transcript of his testimony.

And you're the designer?

And then there is this. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, I think Sig makes some of the best firearms available but I hate Sig as a company. I simply don’t trust them.

quote:

Originally posted by iron chef:
At the time, was Glock's patent on tabbed/dingus safety triggers still in effect? Isn't that why S&W went w/ hinged triggers on their M&P and SD pistols? If that was the case, then Sig must be kicking themselves for not paying that licensing fee.

Design patents last 15 years after the date of issuance of the patent so by the time the P320 was announced, Glock's patent should have been expired by at least a decade.

quote:

Originally posted by limblessbiff:
I haven’t heard of one, seems to be a 320 thing. An army MP was just shot in the foot by his own weapon when somebody bumped into his holster.

I suspect this MP could be in trouble as well because it can be presumed that he wasn't using the gun's thumb safety at the time of this mishap. Pretty sure we can say that a M18 should be unable to fire--unintentionally or otherwise--if the thumb safety is actually on.

quote:

Originally posted by limblessbiff:

quote:

Originally posted by Dwill104:
Are P365s having ADs like the P320s? They don’t have a trigger safety either.

I haven’t heard of one, seems to be a 320 thing. An army MP was just shot in the foot by his own weapon when somebody bumped into his holster.

https://www.nhpr.org/nh-news/2...o-reason-for-concern

I haven’t heard of it being a P250 or P365 problem either, so what’s the difference? None of the three have trigger safeties. Also, not buying the “bumped holster” story. What’s the mechanism that caused the trigger to pull by two holstered guns coming in contact with each other? Not to mention, as has been noted, what about the safety on the military guns? The bump also caused the safety to be moved down in addition to the trigger being pulled?

I love the P365, as the trigger pull is smooth although a bit longer than the P320. That short trigger pull on the P320, in my opinion, seems to be too short.