George Abrahams v. Sig Sauer
Case Background
On June 14, 2022, George Abrahams filed a product liability lawsuit after his Sig Sauer P320 pistol discharged unintentionally. The incident occurred while Abrahams was descending a staircase, with the firearm in his pocket.
The lawsuit alleged negligence and strict product liability, seeking both compensatory and punitive damages. Abrahams filed the case in the Pennsylvania State Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Civil Division. Judges Daniel J. Anders, Linda Carpenter, Denis P. Cohen, and Sean F. Kennedy presided over the matter. [Case number: 220601213]
Cause
George Abrahams (“Plaintiff”), a Pennsylvania resident, served honorably in the U.S. Army, acquiring advanced firearms training and safety expertise. On October 15, 2018, he purchased a Sig Sauer P320 pistol from Defendant Firing Line, Inc., a Pennsylvania-based business. Defendant Sig Sauer promoted the P320 as having “Safety Without Compromise,” yet numerous reports had surfaced nationwide about the weapon discharging without the trigger being pulled. Despite knowing these safety issues since the weapon’s introduction in 2014, Sig Sauer failed to recall it, exposing users to severe harm.
On June 19, 2020, while at home, Abrahams holstered the P320, placed it in the zipped pocket of his athletic pants, and walked downstairs. Without touching the trigger, the pistol discharged unexpectedly, striking his upper right thigh.
Injury
The bullet passed through his quadriceps and exited above his knee, causing extensive tissue damage, significant blood loss, nerve injury, and severe emotional trauma.
Following the injury, Abrahams experienced debilitating physical limitations, including challenges with running, sitting, and standing. His condition required continuous medical treatments and was expected to result in permanent effects.
Damages
Abrahams pursued both compensatory and punitive damages for the physical, emotional, and financial losses he suffered. He argued that Sig Sauer’s reckless disregard for safety caused him significant harm, affecting his daily life and future abilities.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
- Plaintiff(s): George Abrahams
- Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Robert W. Zimmerman | Larry E. Bendesky | Daniel Leo Ceisler | Samuel A. Haaz | Ryan D. Hurd | Michael Benz
- Defendant(s): Sig Sauer | Firing Line, Inc.
- Counsel for Defendant(s): Ericka A. Esposito | Charles S. Toomey | Joyce Uchetta Littleton | William M. Brenan
Claims
Sig Sauer and Firing Line were both responsible for the injuries sustained by Abraham due to defects in the P320 firearm. Sig Sauer, which designed, manufactured, and sold the P320 in a defective condition, was strictly liable for the harm caused by the gun’s unreasonably dangerous defects. Despite knowing the risks, Sig Sauer failed to implement safety measures, causing Abraham’s injuries. Additionally, Sig Sauer was negligent in its duty to design, test, and warn consumers about the gun’s defects, which led to a dangerous discharge on June 19, 2020.
Firing Line, which sold the P320 to Abraham, was also strictly liable as the firearm reached him in the same defective condition. The retailer knew or should have known about the defects but failed to act. Moreover, Firing Line was negligent in its duty to warn Abraham of the gun’s risks and its inclusion in Sig Sauer’s Voluntary Upgrade Program. This neglect contributed to Abraham’s severe physical and emotional harm. Both Defendants’ actions or inactions directly resulted in the injuries, holding them accountable under strict liability and negligence claims.
Defense
Sig Sauer maintained that the gun was safe and reliable. During the trial, the defense attempted to shift blame onto Abrahams. They argued comparative negligence, claiming Abrahams ignored several safety rules and warnings while handling the firearm. Despite owning the gun for more than 18 months before the incident, he had never trained with it or fired it prior to its discharge.
Jury Verdict
Following a three-week trial, a Philadelphia jury on Wednesday, November 20, 2024, concluded that Sig Sauer had defectively designed the P320 pistol. The jury also found Sig Sauer negligent in selling the firearm and acting with reckless indifference to the rights of others during its distribution. Consequently, the jury awarded Abrahams $1 million in compensatory damages and an additional $10 million in punitive damages.
The $11 million verdict is the second verdict against Sig Sauer this year. Earlier this year, a federal jury awarded $2.35 million to a Georgia man who was wounded when his holstered P320 went off.
Post-trial Motions and Counsel Remarks
After the verdict, the Plaintiff’s lawyer Robert W. Zimmerman of Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky stated, “We’ve been asking Sig for over three years now to recall this gun, to fix it, and frankly to use the same type of safeties that other manufacturers are using that Sig Sauer is not.” He emphasized that the verdict “sends a strong message to Sig Sauer that they need to do something with this gun.”
Zimmerman’s co-counsel, Ryan Hurd, added, “We have said it before, and juries are now speaking loud and clear with their verdicts; this gun is a danger to gun owners and anyone within the vicinity of this gun.”
Sig Sauer, meanwhile, has indicated plans to appeal the Georgia verdict. In a statement posted on its website, the company noted that jurors had “agreed that plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to his accident.” It also defended the P320, describing it as “among the most tested, proven, and successful handguns in recent history.”
Sig Sauer responded to the verdict by stating, “We strongly disagree with the verdict in this unintended discharge lawsuit … and will be appealing the decision on multiple grounds.” The company asserted that the jury’s ruling was unsupported by and contrary to the evidence presented. Sig Sauer announced its intention to file a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and, if unsuccessful, to appeal the decision on several grounds.
Leave A Comment