News Jury finds SIG P320 'defectively designed' in Cambridge police lawsuit

[GoldensRule]

The P320 is the gift that keeps on giving...

Jury finds SIG P320 'defectively designed' in Cambridge police lawsuit

Jury finds SIG P320 'defectively designed' in Cambridge police lawsuit

www.unionleader.com

 

[adrkwan]

Interesting defense by Sig. Jury verdict found:

1. Sig Sauer breached the implied warranty of merchantability by defectively designing the P320 pistol? Yes
2. Sig Sauer's defective design of the P320 pistol caused Plaintiff's injury? Yes
3. Sig Sauer breached the implied warrant of merchantability by failing to give adequate warnings regarding risks associated with the P320 pistol? Yes
4. Sig Sauer's failure to give adequate warnings regarding risks associated with the P320 pistol caused Plaintiff's injury? No
5. Sig Sauer proved that Plaintiff's voluntary and unreasonable use of the P320 pistol knowing that it was defective and dangerous and was injured as a result? Yes
6. No damages for Plaintiff.

 

[GoldensRule]

Interesting defense by Sig. Jury verdict found:

1. Sig Sauer breached the implied warranty of merchantability by defectively designing the P320 pistol? Yes
2. Sig Sauer's defective design of the P320 pistol caused Plaintiff's injury? Yes
3. Sig Sauer breached the implied warrant of merchantability by failing to give adequate warnings regarding risks associated with the P320 pistol? Yes
4. Sig Sauer's failure to give adequate warnings regarding risks associated with the P320 pistol caused Plaintiff's injury? No
5. Sig Sauer proved that Plaintiff's voluntary and unreasonable use of the P320 pistol knowing that it was defective and dangerous and was injured as a result? Yes
6. No damages for Plaintiff.

Juries can be fickle and strange beasts.

 

[jkody]

There is a problem with Sig P320's?

 

[EsotericEpsilon]

Interesting defense by Sig. Jury verdict found:

1. Sig Sauer breached the implied warranty of merchantability by defectively designing the P320 pistol? Yes
2. Sig Sauer's defective design of the P320 pistol caused Plaintiff's injury? Yes
3. Sig Sauer breached the implied warrant of merchantability by failing to give adequate warnings regarding risks associated with the P320 pistol? Yes
4. Sig Sauer's failure to give adequate warnings regarding risks associated with the P320 pistol caused Plaintiff's injury? No
5. Sig Sauer proved that Plaintiff's voluntary and unreasonable use of the P320 pistol knowing that it was defective and dangerous and was injured as a result? Yes
6. No damages for Plaintiff.

So by admitting there IS a problem with P320s and claiming the plaintiff KNEW it was defective but continued to use it, SIG washed their hands.. am I reading this right?

 

[GoldensRule]

So by admitting there IS a problem with P320s and claiming the plaintiff KNEW it was defective but continued to use it, SIG washed their hands.. am I reading this right?

Reads like a real cluster doesn't it?

 

[BroDude]

You can thank assumption of risk laws for this outcome. This whole thing can be summarized as SIG saying: "We don't think it's defective. You thought and 'knew' it is defective and continued to use it anyway. Therefore, you assumed the risk and we're not responsible for damages."

Unfortunately, this is not an admission of defectiveness. Their defenses of "not defective" and "you assumed the risk of continuing to use what you thought was defective" can legally coexist without contradiction. The upside is we did get a ruling that the P320 was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous, and that this defective design caused Officer Desrosiers’s injury.

All in all, this ruling kind of nothing. Sig can still argue "not defective" in future appeals and cases, didn't have to pay anything, and the ruling is only binding in MA. That said, it's not completely useless. This is a symbolic win that adds reputational harm and mounting pressure, and while not legally binding in other states, it's still a ruling that declares the gun defective.