A federal appeals court has allowed a product liability lawsuit brought by an upstate New York police officer to proceed against Sig Sauer after the officer said his semi-automatic pistol went off while holstered during a training exercise.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan reinstated the claims on Thursday in a 2-1 decision. The plaintiff, Michael Colwell, a detective with the Troy Police Department, says he sustained a leg injury when his department-issued P320 discharged in June 2021 despite remaining holstered. Colwell maintains he never touched the trigger.
Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Gerard Lynch said a reasonable jury could conclude it was more likely than not that Colwell’s injury would not have occurred if the pistol had been equipped with an external safety known as a tabbed trigger. Lynch said jurors could apply common sense in assessing whether any "foreign object" may have contacted the P320’s trigger and that such contact would not have led to a discharge if the trigger had been tabbed.
Sig Sauer and its legal representatives did not immediately provide comment in response to inquiries.
The P320 is widely used by many law enforcement agencies and by the U.S. military, and Sig Sauer also markets a civilian version. The Newington, New Hampshire-based company has consistently defended the pistol’s safety, stating on its website that the firearm "cannot under any circumstance discharge without a trigger pull." Despite that position, Sig Sauer has faced numerous lawsuits alleging the P320’s design makes it vulnerable to unintentional discharge.
Colwell’s attorney, Robert Zimmerman, said the couple look forward to taking the case to a jury. Zimmerman also stated they are aware of more than 500 unintended discharges involving the product, a figure he described as "staggering and unacceptable."
The appeals court’s decision to revive the case came even though it agreed with the trial judge that experts’ testimony about the P320’s alleged defective design was properly excluded. The trial court had found that the experts failed to explain how the lack of an external safety specifically caused Colwell’s injury.
Circuit Judge Richard Sullivan wrote a dissent, finding no evidence in the record identifying what caused the firearm to fire. Sullivan said the question involved complex matters of physics, engineering and ergonomics that lay jurors would not be equipped to resolve, warning that "the jury could do little more than guess."
Judge Lynch contrasted the Colwell case with a separate appeal heard in Denver last June in which the appeals court ruled for Sig Sauer. Lynch said that earlier case lacked causation testimony and differed because the plaintiff there had not identified what parts of the body or what part of the holster did or did not contact the trigger of the P320.
The majority in Thursday’s decision consisted of Judges Gerard Lynch and Pierre Leval. The opinion notes the appointing presidents for the panel: Lynch and Leval were appointed to the 2nd Circuit by Democratic Presidents, while the dissenting Judge Sullivan was appointed by a Republican President.
Legal and procurement significance
The ruling sends the Colwell case back toward trial, keeping alive allegations that design choices on a widely deployed service pistol could have safety and liability consequences for the manufacturer and potentially for agencies that deploy the weapon.
Next steps
With the appeals court allowing the claims to proceed, the case is positioned for a jury trial unless further legal developments occur. The record reflects disagreement among judges over whether the existing evidence permits jurors to draw the necessary causal link.