Sixth Circuit ruling follows two jury trials in which P320 gunshot victims were awarded millions in damages
CINCINNATI, Jan. 31, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- A Federal appeals court in Ohio this week issued an order reinstating the case (Timothy Davis v. Sig Sauer, Inc. No. 24-5210, Originating Case No. 3:22-cv-00010) of a Kentucky man injured in 2021 by his holstered P320 . In the two most recent defective P320 cases to go to trial (in Georgia and Pennsylvania), juries awarded P320 owners-gunshot victims millions in damages after finding New Hampshire-based Sig Sauer liable for their injuries. In the Pennsylvania case, the jury found Sig Sauer's conduct reckless and assessed punitive damages against the gun maker.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, in its January 27th opinion written by Judge Karen Nelson Moore, said the District trial court erred in granting Sig Sauer's summary judgement. The appellate court ruled that Plaintiffs' expert's design-defect opinions were admissible and should be presented to a jury. Judge Moore added, "Because we reverse the district court's decision to exclude completely the expert witnesses, we also hold that Davis (Plaintiff Timothy Davis) has demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the P320 was defectively designed and caused his injury.”
Robert W. Zimmerman, of the Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky plaintiff's litigation team that includes attorneys Ryan Hurd and Samuel A. Haaz, said "We look forward to representing Mr. Davis at trial following the Court's decision to allow a Kentucky jury to decide this case. Mr. Davis's case is substantially similar to other P320 cases including the Lang (Georgia) and Abrahams (Pennsylvania) cases that resulted in significant jury verdicts against Sig.” Mr. Zimmerman's firm now represents more than 100 P320 owners who, like Mr. Davis, were seriously injured by this dangerous and potentially lethal sidearm. "This is yet another chance for Sig Sauer to listen to what Courts and juries are telling them and recall this dangerously designed weapon.”
Attorneys Haaz (who argued the case before the Court) noted that the opinion referenced the Kentucky Products Liability statute, stating in a footnote: "…the appropriate question is whether Sig Sauer acted prudently in its design of the P320, not whether Davis acted prudently in his decision to purchase the P320.”
The firm continues to uncover more instances of unintended discharges. Its clients seek to hold Sig Sauer accountable for the defectively designed gun and call upon the company to take safety-related actions similar to its competitors to avoid injuring or killing other victims. The P320 has been the subject of controversy, litigation, and media scrutiny for years. Additional related information on the Sig Sauer litigation - and the gun's troubled history - can be found at www.SMB_SigSauerCases.
Contacts:
Robert W. Zimmerman / [email protected] / 215-575-3898
Steph Rosenfeld / [email protected] / 215-514-4101
