BOWLING GREEN, Ky. (Legal Newsline) - Gun-maker SIG Sauer has defeated another lawsuit alleging its P320 went off without the trigger being pulled.
Kentucky federal judge Greg Stivers on March 29 granted SIG Sauer summary judgment after finding the testimony of two plaintiff experts unreliable. It's at least the second decision for SIG in the last year, as a New Hampshire federal jury ruled for it in a similar case in July.
Lawyer Jeffrey Bagnell brought both cases, as his practice has come to include recruiting clients who say they were shot as a result of a design defect in the P320.
In the Kentucky case, Bagnell alleged Stephen Mayes had the gun in a holster on his hip when it discharged, shooting him in the thigh. SIG refuted the expert reports of Timothy Hicks and Peter Villani, an engineer whose experience is primarily in automobiles and an operations officer for the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs Police, respectively.
SIG Sauer said neither did their own testing to support their design defect theories. Though hands-on testing is not an absolute prerequisite, Stivers wrote, opinions amounting to "no more than a hypothesis are not reliable, despite how convincing they may appear."
"Neither of the experts have conducted physical testing on Mayes' pistol specifically, nor any other pistol to support their theory regarding the amount of rollover needed to cause an uncommanded discharge," Stivers wrote.
"They also do not offer any calculations to support their theories. Plainly, both experts opine that a raised surface on the interface between components of the gun could result in an uncommanded discharge in theory.
"But neither Hicks nor Villani offers any evidence suggesting that such an uncommanded discharge occurs generally or that it did in this case."
Without experts required by Kentucky product liability law, Bagnell's case fell apart, resulting in judgment for SIG.
In Connecticut, the company recently argued it should be able to depose an animation company Bagnell worked with to produce computer-generated animation about the alleged defect that Bagnell posted on YouTube.
Bagnell claimed the material sought is protected by the work-product privilege. The two sides apparently came to an agreement during a hearing March 30 regarding what questions can be asked.