A U.S. appeals court has breathed new life into a lawsuit against firearms manufacturer Sig Sauer, prompted by an incident involving an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer, Keith Slatowski, who was injured when his P320 handgun discharged unexpectedly during a training drill.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia ruled that the initial trial judge erred in dismissing Slatowski’s lawsuit after excluding testimonies from two experts who could have provided insights into the potential design flaws of the firearm that may contribute to unintended discharges. The court mandated that the case be returned to U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick in Philadelphia for possible trial.
In September 2020, while on duty at a New Castle, Delaware firing range, Slatowski reported that his P320 activated from within its holster after he activated the grip with his hand, resulting in a gunshot wound that traversed through his hip and thigh. He is contesting the safety of the gun’s design, particularly criticizing the lack of an external safety feature to prevent unexpected firings. His lawsuit demands $10 million in damages, with remarks from his attorney underlining the couple’s gratitude for the chance to present their case to a jury.
Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas pointed out in the ruling that, while the trial judge rightly excluded expert testimony on whether the specific design of Slatowski’s gun led to his injury due to a lack of testing, discussions about possible design defects should have been permitted. The court affirmed that these technical complexities surrounding the firearm warrant a jury’s evaluation rather than a unilateral dismissal from the bench.
The lawsuit represents an ongoing concern within the wider conversation around gun safety, design accountability, and the protection of individuals using such products, especially as similar lawsuits against Sig Sauer have emerged in the past concerning unintended firings of the P320. This renewed legal battle may ultimately catalyze discussions about firearm safety regulations and the responsibilities of manufacturers in ensuring their products do not pose an undue risk to users.
Overall, this case embodies significant implications not only for Slatowski and his family but potentially for firearm safety standards industry-wide, emphasizing the need for comprehensive evaluations of gun designs that prioritize user safety.
Leave a comment