Page 2

Loading...
Tips: Click on articles from page
Page 2 5,713 viewsPrint | Download

U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante has rejected a proposed class-action lawsuit filed by an Arizona gun owner who argued his pistol, manufactured by Newington-based Sig Sauer, has lost value due to an alleged design flaw involving the weapon’s trigger. The decision means Sig Sauer, for now, avoids a financial hit that could have reached into the tens of millions of dollars.

The three-year-long case centered on the claims of Derick Ortiz, a police officer from the town of Snowflake, Ariz., who said he wouldn’t have purchased, or would have paid less, for his model P320 pistol if he had been aware of alleged “drop fire” incidents, in which the gun fires without a trigger pull.

Sig Sauer maintains the P320 is safe, but the company offers a free voluntary modification that swaps out certain components of the gun, including its trigger, in older models.

The P320 is used by law enforcement agencies across the country, and in 2017, was selected as the new sidearm for the U.S. Army, a contract worth up to $580 million. According to court records in the case, the Army discovered the P320 could fire when dropped at certain angles in 2016, prompting the company to modify its design. However, lawyers for Ortiz said the company continued to sell hundreds of thousands of P320s with the original design to the public and law enforcement agencies.

A similar proposed class action lawsuit was filed earlier this year in federal court in Missouri by a police officer seeking monetary damages for residents of that state who purchased a P320. According to court records in that matter, there have been at least 20 individual civil lawsuits against Sig Sauer nationwide filed by plaintiffs allegedly injured by an unintentional discharge of the gun.

One of those cases ended earlier this month, involving a Hillsborough man who alleged his P320 discharged without a trigger pull, resulting in a serious leg injury. U.S District Judge Landya McCafferty ruled that Sig Sauer had not violated the state’s Consumer Protection Act in how it markets the gun. Earlier this summer, a jury declined to award the same plaintiff, Kyle Guay, monetary damages.

— TODD BOOKMAN/NH PUBLIC RADIO