Products Liability Law Reporter

Veteran George Abrahams, 53, was home with his Sig Sauer P320 in its holster in the zipped right pocket of his athletic pants. The pistol suddenly and unexpectedly discharged as Abrahams was walking down the stairs, even though he had not touched the trigger and did not intend to fire the gun. The bullet struck Abrahams’s upper right thigh, went through his quad muscle, and exited above his right knee, resulting in tissue and nerve damage, blood loss, and severe emotional trauma. His injuries are permanent.

He sued Sig Sauer, Inc., alleging negligence, defective design, and reckless indifference to the rights of others in distributing the pistol. Among other things, the plaintiff argued that the defendant failed to incorporate a manual external safety, tabbed trigger safety, or grip safety to prevent unintended discharges. The plaintiff did not seek past medical expenses or lost income but did claim $400,000 in future medical expenses.

The jury awarded $11 million.

Citation: Abrahams v. Sig Sauer, Inc., No. 220601213 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. Phila. Cnty. Nov. 20, 2024).

Plaintiff counsel: AAJ members Robert W. Zimmerman, Ryan Hurd, Larry Bendesky, and Samuel A. Haaz, all of Philadelphia.

Comment: In Winingham v. Sig Sauer, Inc., 2024 WL 3726442 (D. Ariz. Aug. 7, 2024), Harvey Winingham owned a Sig Sauer P320 handgun. After learning that the company was offering P320 owners a voluntary upgrade that was intended to decrease the risk of the gun misfiring when it was dropped, he sent the gun in for the upgrade. He received it back and allegedly read Sig Sauer’s statement that the P320 “won’t fire unless you want it to.” Winingham was later shot when the P320 discharged without him touching the trigger. He lost a finger and suffered significant injury to his entire left hand. Winingham sued Sig Sauer, Inc., alleging negligence, strict liability, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, breach of express warranty, consumer fraud, and common law fraud. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to preclude the opinions of the plaintiff’s expert, after which the defendant moved for summary judgment. Granting the motion, the district court found that the plaintiff offered no scientific or mechanical evidence that the gun was defective. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that he was able to prove his products liability claims by relying on res ipsa loquitur. The plaintiff was in sole possession of the gun at the time of his injury, the court said, adding that he also was in a position to show the circumstances that caused the incident. Citing case law, the court noted that an implied warranty theory is merged into the doctrine of strict liability and therefore such an implied warranty claim stands or falls with a plaintiff’s strict liability claim. Finally, the court concluded that the plaintiff’s fraud and express warranty claims were precluded based on the plaintiff’s failure to show that he had relied on the defendant’s statements or that the statements had become part of the basis of the bargain when he purchased or upgraded the P320.