Quantcast

LEGAL NEWSLINE

Saturday, November 2, 2024

Jury rules for gun-maker in case of alleged misfire into man's leg

Federal Court
Sigp230

CONCORD, N.H. (Legal Newsline) – A federal jury has rejected a lawsuit that said a gun made by SIG Sauer, Inc., went off without the trigger being pulled and sent a bullet through its owner’s leg.

On July 25, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire ruled for the gun-maker in Kyle Guay’s lawsuit, answering “no” to five questions as to whether the company was liable for his injuries.

Guay’s lawsuit said he had a SIG Sauer P320 in its holster on Dec. 17, 2016. As he removed the holster from his waistband, the gun fired, he claimed, allowing a hollow point bullet to pierce his right thigh. The incident caused nerve damage, his suit said.

But the company – which faces similar lawsuits brought by a personal injury lawyer it has sued in return – successfully fended off the accusations.

Judge Landya McCafferty allowed a deputy U.S. marshal to handle the gun and place it into Guay’s broken holster in order for the jury to see how it fit and where the trigger was located.

“We are going to be at a very long stalemate without us seeing how it fits in the holster + how far out it has to be to pull the trigger,” jurors wrote.

The company argued Guay’s lawyer could not prove causation – that even though he could argue the gun could go off without the trigger being pulled, he could not show that was what happened to Guay. McCafferty rejected the company’s motion for summary judgment, allowing the jury to decide that issue for itself.

Meanwhile, other suits from lawyer Jeffrey Bagnell are pending. SIG Sauer’s lawsuit against the attorney was recently transferred to Connecticut federal court.

SIG Sauer’s lawsuit alleges a video on Bagnell’s website and on YouTube has a computer-generated animation about an alleged defect in the P320 that causes it to fire on its own. The case says the video incorrectly depicts the gun’s design and makes claims about its mechanics that are physically impossible.

In March, the company moved for a preliminary injunction requiring him to remove the video permanently. The video is currently removed, pending a court decision, but it has seen at least 36,000 times on YouTube.

More News