In a recent civil court ruling on a ND by a Sig P320 by a Massachusetts Police officer (Desrosiers v. Sig Sauer Inc) a jury found that:

>sig had defectively designed the p320
>defective design is what caused injury
>sig knew about the defect and failed to warn about it
>the failure of this warning is not what led to the injury
>the defendants voluntary and unreasonable use of the p320 despite knowing it was defective and dangerous is what led to his injury

Despite the fact that Sig effectively "won" this case, because they won't have to reward damages to the defendant, they've really kind of lost in a sense because this makes the P320 a legal liability not only to Sig (because other jury's may still find them financially liable in future cases) but now it's an established precedent that it is a legal liability to anybody who:

>sells/uses the p320
>allows the use of the p320 in their establishment or comapny

Across the board several tactical training schools, police departments, and security companies are banning the use of the P320 out of fear of legal liability for injuries caused by it going off when it isn't supposed to. I'm sure there are already many gun stores out there who already have, or are considering pulling them from the shelves out of fear of being held legally liable for selling a product they know is defective. The cascading effects of this are going to be absolutely devastating not only for Sig Sauer, but the gun industry as a whole. Imagine somebody bought a P320 from a gun store, and it eventually goes off injuring somebody. Sig's lawyers may point out this case and say, "Why is it only our fault? Why shouldn't the gun store or the gun owner be held liable for damages? Here's this case from Massachusetts where we weren't held financially liable". It doesn't matter if they're morally or legally correct here, because this will be decided by a jury of average Americans. Gun stores may face financial devastation and bankruptcy from lawsuits.

Another scenario which is now entirely realistic, is that say you own a P320 and decide to use it as a nightstand gun in case of a break in. You load it up, put it in a lock box and put it away in the drawer of your nightstand. During the night, let's say you bump the nightstand and somehow the gun goes off, and the bullet goes through the lock box, through the nightstand, through the wall, and it hurts somebody. This precedent can now be cited in a court case to argue that YOU are actually the one who is legally financially liable for the injury and maybe even criminally liable depending on how much of a hard ass your prosecutor is.

I think honestly people who own the P320 and the gun stores that have sold them need to think very seriously about protecting their own asses if Sig isn't going to do the right thing in a timely manner. If I were a gun store owner, I would seriously consider sending letters out to all of your customers telling them that you'll take their P320 in and exchange it with a comparable pistol. If I were an owner, I would try to sell it back to the gun store, and if they refused or wanted to low ball it I would stick it in a safe unloaded and forget it exists until Sig is legally required to compensate me for it.

Before anybody says that a gun store taking in a bunch of guns they're not going to be able to resale in exchange for a bunch of guns that they would have otherwise been able to make a profit on would destroy them financially, consider that a single lawsuit could be substantially worse for them financially and more importantly, reputationally. They might be able to recover from the former, maybe even thrive from it, but they would almost certainly be destroyed by the latter.

>Jury finds p320 defective
>Jury some how rules in SIG favor
mfw

>>64064474 (OP)
>>the defendants voluntary and unreasonable use of the p320 despite knowing it was defective and dangerous is what led to his injury
Is he one of the kinds of people that actually learned about the drop safety issue all that time ago and still chose to carry it?
My assumption with most of the discharges has been that they just didn't know.
Not sure what to make of that jury decision though, feels wrong but the legal system can be like that.

>>64064546
They found it defective and decided that the guy should have known it was defective.
SIG wins, but now it's precedent that their product is so fucked that everyone should know it is and act accordingly. This is going to bite them in other court cases if they ever have to argue that it's not defective junk.

>>64064565
>They found it defective and decided that the guy should have known it was defective.
>SIG wins

Also it's really funny that his wife was a plaintiff in the case on the basis that he shot his junk off and now she's been deprived of dick.

>>64064555
>Not sure what to make of that jury decision though, feels wrong but the legal system can be like that.
Exactly, and this uncertainty makes the P320 positively radioactive. By owning, selling, or knowingly allowing them on your premise, you're taking on a massive legal liability because there's no knowing how the jury will rule. Juries are effectively retarded, which means they can make all kinds of nonsensical rulings, and those rulings are backed by the power of the state. Sure, you could try to appeal, but even if you're granted one and you win on the second case, or even the third, the legal fees are going to be absolutely devastating.

>>64064565
>Sig is not liable for damages because everyone already knows Sig is dogshit
A daring strategy, lets see if it pays off.

>>64064574
This is actually more evidence of the jury being retarded, because he was appendix carrying the weapon outside of the holster which could set ANY gun off, but since the P320 has a reputation and an overwhelming number of cases that were undoubtedly shown to the jury regardless of whether they won in court on the merits, they still ruled against Sig on the first three counts.

>>64064474 (OP)
>>64064502
>>64064513
The important distinction is the "voluntary and UNREASONABLE USE" part. The ruling simply means that, while defective, in this specific case the behavior of the plaintiff contributed to the injury which is why no monetary damages were awarded. Your hypothetical in the second post would be reasonable use and leave them wide open to damages. It also doesn't put the legal liability on owners who bought the pistol under the reasonable assumption that they weren't unsafely defective, it doesn't put any liability on gun store owners who sold the pistol under the reasonable assumption that they weren't unsafely defective, and it certainly doesn't mean that Sig can use "we knowingly sold dangerously defective pistols but it doesn't count because a court declared our guns dangerous defective so that means it's really everyone else's fault for being injured after that point" as a legal defense - especially not when they're still also arguing that the guns aren't defective. They could try, obviously, but "what Timmy gonna do?" isn't exactly a sound legal strategy.

>>64064546
>>64064565
Thus why this ruling could potentially destroy the gun industry as a whole. If there are no gun stores around to sell guns because they all got sued out of existence by people who were injured or killed by a gun they sold knowing it was defective (whether they did or not is immaterial since the Jury could conclude that there was no way they didn't know it was) then other gun manufacturers will suffer because they won't have any outlet to sell their guns, there won't be any way to do FFL transfers, nowhere to buy ammo and supplies outside of websites that may eventually be required to ask for ID thanks to new "online safety" laws that are in the works... I'm telling ya man, Sig might have fucked EVERYONE.

>>64064474 (OP)
Fuck ya
mudda

>>64064597
How? How could any reasonable person conclude that gun store owners had NO IDEA that the P320 was potentially dangerous? The problems with the P320 have been going on for years now, this isn't something that just came up now that a dude in the military got killed by one while it was still in it's holster. A jury could very easily conclude that gun store owners were more than aware of the potential risks in selling the P320 even if their customers were not. Again, you have to think like a lawyer, and you have to put yourself in the mind of the average normie who might be called up to serve Jury duty. A lawyer could easily make this argument.

>>64064474 (OP)
This whole clusterfuck serves as a perfect example of how sometimes listening to your customers is a mistake. The P250 was perfect.

>>64064670
Yet there's a small part of me that can't help but think that maybe... just maybe... Sig did this on purpose. Probably has something to do with their CEO being Jewish and having already ruined Kimber before ruining Sig. He'll likely take his golden parachute, quit Sig and move onto the next gun company in search of a new CEO.

>>64064474 (OP)
>Oh you think its my fault my products are killing and maiming people? Heh, nice try kid, but you'd have to be a retard to buy a Sig so its actually your fault
Nice, we're in the endgame now. Sig has been a pump and dump since Cohen took over, he underbid and pulled all the strings to get the company all the big contracts, then he maximized profits by cost cutting on those contracts (perhaps to an illegal extent), now expect him to make his fast exit as the company collapses around him. It all makes sense when you recognize that Sig isn't really supposed to survive this.

>>64064626
I'm going to assume you're just an average retard and try to explain this using as few syllables per word as possible. No government agency has declared the firearm unsafe, the manufacturer has not declared the firearm unsafe, no recalls are happening. Unverified reports of problems are not proof of problems. Gun stores are not in a position to determine whether or not a product has manufacturing defects, they are not expected to determine if a product has manufacturing defects, and they are not in a position to do data analysis and to determine if there is a significant correlation between UDs and Sig 320s. And because you are an average retard, you also failed to notice that by your train of logic, the gunstore isn't liable because the consumer should have known.

>>64064474 (OP)
Thank you Runkle of the Bailey

>this makes the P320 a legal liability not only to Sig (because other jury's may still find them financially liable in future cases) but now it's an established precedent that it is a legal liability to anybody who:
No, because what a jury says doesn't set precedent.

>>64064732
Yet over 20 Police Departments have officially banned the use of the P320, and Sig is actively suing Washington State in order to force it back into use. Like I said, you have to think like a lawyer, and put yourself in the mind of the average normie dumbass American who will be called up for Jury duty for these rulings. If you think what I'm saying is retarded, that's why. You're simply not grasping the reality of the situation we're in right now. It's BAD.

>>64064741
They do in the sense that it gives lawyers cases to look up and reference, or argue towards similar outcomes. There's no way that a Sig lawyer DOESN'T make the case that they shouldn't be held liable for financial compensation because the defendant undertook an unnecessary risk by using their product, and logically this also means that gun stores undertook an unnecessary risk by selling it.

>>64064474 (OP)
sig fucked up using the p250 to make the p320 in the same way boeing fucked up using the 737 to make the 737 max. both redesigns should have been started from scratch

>>64064695
Then why even release the P250?

Look the fact is the P250 is the gun Sig *wanted* to make but their retarded wannabe high speed low drag operator customers demanded it have a race gun trigger. Should police, military, and most CCers be carrying guns with light SAO triggers? No. Absolutely not.

>>64064755
How can the pistol be unsafe if the government that banned it is getting sued for banning it?

>>64064771
>They do in the sense that it gives lawyers cases to look up and reference, or argue towards similar outcomes. There's no way that a Sig lawyer DOESN'T make the case that they shouldn't be held liable for financial compensation because the defendant undertook an unnecessary risk by using their product, and logically this also means that gun stores undertook an unnecessary risk by selling it.
>platitudes

Okay, and?

The p320 hate is literally an anti/noguns psyop. Ganging up on one of the world's most well-known and respected firearms manufacturers due to a few isolated incidents is nothing but media hysteria and /k/ is falling for it.

>>64064832
Fuck ya
mudda

>>64064832
Get a load of this faggot.

>>64064794
Honestly I think the major mistake was having the gun manufactured in India. It seems to me from all I've seen that one of the major contributing factors is poor tolerances between the parts causing the malfunctions. Too much play between the slide and the frame for example... if the tolerances were better I feel like there wouldn't be a problem, meaning it may not be an inherent design flaw, more than it is a flaw in execution of that design because the gun is being manufactured by retarded pajeets.

>>64064822
Because the company that makes it doesn't want people thinking it's unsafe, dumbass.

>>64064818
see >>64064836

>>64064794
Exactly. The difference here is that the general public does not actually care about airplane models and has long since forgotten the MAX problem. Compare that to the gun community who at this point will NEVER forget the P320.

>>64064832
Fuck ya
mudda.

>>64064836
>>64064843
Would not have been a problem for the P250 because there is no energy stored in the firing mechanism.

>>64064853
The p320 is a strict upgrade why would something be done 'worse' if it was for no reason.

>>64064832
Yep, Sig intentionally made a bad gun to make all guns look bad.
It's the same reason movies and video games keep featuring ugly and retarded main characters to make everyone hate both industries.

>>64064853
Since the P250 is hammer fired, the energy is stored entirely in the frame of the gun, rather than in the slide. So basically what a lot of people have been doing to get them to go off in experiments is they remove the take-up and then jiggle the slide around until it goes off. What this tells me is that it's a tolerance issue more than it is a design flaw, because if the tolerances were better and there wasn't any slop between the slide and the frame, then it wouldn't happen. But there is, and so it does.

>>64064502
You would be finacially liable either way bozo lol. You think if you load any gun that goes off by itself. A gun that YOU loaded and YOU stored, that everyone would say "oopsies" if it went and killed a little neighbor girl?

>>64064857
>The p320 is a strict upgrade
99% Of users would be better off with the P250's DA trigger. Including you.

>>64064868
There is no energy stored in the P250 firing mechanism while it is at rest retard. It is DAO like a hammerless revolver.

>>64064868
Same thing happens with other guns by the way. Remove the wall and play with the slide.

>>64064843
Sig can't argue that it's not liable for damages even though the gun is unsafe while also arguing that the gun is safe. All OP is doing is going "okay, but what if..." while ignoring the fact that an argument of liability for their knowingly defective product resting on the retailers and consumers because they should have known better is a retarded legal argument that would get destroyed by any lawyer approaching competent or the fact that said argument is directly undermined by Sig's own actions.

>>64064882
Doesn't happen with the P250.

>>64064882
Doesn't happen with my 1911 so... you're wrong.

>>64064876
No, before this case you could argue that Sig should be financially liable because the gun was defective, now the argument will be that you should have known it was defective and therefore you should be financially liable.

Captcha says it all.

>>64064906
Unfortunately I'm retarded, this was the Captcha

>>64064880
We're both saying the same thing in different ways.

>>64064882
I think some other guns have firing pin blocks just in case such a thing is an issue.
But if that were the case that would also mean that people draw on a dead trigger, has that happened enough to notice?

I forgot to mention earlier that OP's case is actually jewish in the opposite direction. The "defect" being discussed is lack of external safety. They are arguing that guns without external safeties shouldn't even be sold like in California.

>>64064982
Aren't there P320's with external safeties going off uncommanded too? I don't think the external safety plays a part in the defect, unless that was an argument made in the Massachusetts case.

>>64064991
You are correct but that is how the plaintiff argued.

>>64064546
In product liability cases, the defendant can still escape liability (depending on the quirks of local law) by showing a superseding cause. As demonstrated in this case, if you knew a product was defective but used it anyway, your knowing use of the product supersedes any defect because you could have avoided the injury by not using the product you knew to be defective.

>>64064574
It's called loss of consortium, and it's a frequently-alleged claim if a plaintiff is married.

>>64064502
>and it hurts somebody
If you haven't been living under a rock and still keep a 320 loaded you are at fault if your known unsafe gun randomly goes off.

>>64064474 (OP)
>Ok sure he raped you but you were asking for ti wearing a miniskirt like that and walking through an alley
What in the fuck?

>>why we hate lawyers


This thread summarized

>>64064474 (OP)
TL;DR
>Massholes
Oh look another attack on the 2A masquerading as 'consumer rights protection' all because a few idiots shot themselves when mishandled a firearm. Fuck the gungrabbers, I'll defend the Second Amendment and Sig Saur till my last breath.

>>64065089
>Mr. SIGged, have you seen a video by a man that strongly resembles, what internet users commonly refer to as a "Basedjack", clearly demonstrating and communicating that the gun is able to fire on its own?
"Um...Maybe?"
>We present to the court Mr. SIGged's youtube watch history, which proves that Mr. SIGged watched and disliked the aforementioned video BEFORE their injury. We're not liable kthxbye
"What in the goddamn"

>>64064832
Or maybe another way to look at it would be that if the 2A firearms community, whatever you want to call it, doesn't police itself, then you are giving that media a reason to say guns actually are dangerous.

>>64064474 (OP)
>the defendants voluntary and unreasonable use of the p320 despite knowing it was defective and dangerous is what led to his injury
Fucking hell. How do they even prove that he knew it was dangerous and defective or that his continued use was unreasonable and voluntary?

>>64065730
This is why I have been saying that any hope of this controversy destroying the company is foolish. It's their game to win

>>64065730
Yeah, this is such incredible bullshit. How does one wake up in the morning, go to a jury, and decide that this makes sense?

>>64065748
Trying to sue a military contractor almost never works, even if you have all the evidence in the world

>>64065731
In reality it completely destroys any attempt at them claiming the gun is neither unsafe nor defective, opens them up to contract violation suits, opens them to fraud suits, opens them to consumer protection lawsuits, opens them to be sued by retailer, distributors, and owners for breach of warranty and product liability, and negligence no longer applies to them. Don't forget it's "and unreasonable use" which means Sig has to prove that both the plaintiff was aware of a defect in his gun AND be using it in an unreasonable manner (in this case the guy was apparently carrying in condition fabric) which is an affirmative defense rather than a negating defense. It's not their game to win, it's Sig defending themselves against anal rape with a concrete enema. This case isn't even binding precedent.

>gun ND's into the user
>it's actually the user's fault for carrying such a pos gun not the company's
The american justice system is a fucking joke

>>64064474 (OP)
>"Our product is perfect and has no issues"
>"But if for whatever reason it goes off it's your fault for using a weapon known to have issues"

>>64064574
100% legit grievance though, the couple is deprived of siring children/more children, and they can't even fuck for fun anymore either.
Like, that's no laughing matter to me, those are some of the very finest things there are in life, fucking your spouse and raising children, and now it's taken from them forever and ever.

>>64064588
>because he was appendix carrying the weapon outside of the holster which could set ANY gun off
lmao no

>>64064670
>service pistol
>DAO
>perfect
lmao no

>>64067611
>siring

why do weirdos on 4chan always use villain words when talking about procreation?

>>64064818
Light SAO triggers (3-4lbs) are literally entirely fine if you put any effort into safety. Even older 1911s before the firing pin block change are 100% safe with a lightened aluminum trigger and using a titanium firing pin.

>>64067657
It's only weird if you're a child hating Redditor or detached homosexual.

>>64064991
Yes, the manual safety on the P320 only blocks the trigger, nothing else.

>>64067657
Too much VTMB

>>64064565
>>64064474 (OP)
>gun is defective
>manufacturer knows this and hides it
>somehow it's the owners fault
Holy fuck did the lawyer pull a thank you for smoking maneuver?
>yes we know smoking is unhealthy, everyone knows smoking is unhealthy, there's no need for warning labels

>>64067640
The fact that people accepted
>Let's just make the trigger pull lighter and shorter but with no manual safety so it's easier for retard recruits to use it and to reduce training hours to save money
shows that handgun design peaked with DA/SA or DAO, and everything since has been a cost-cutting compromise to safety. People don't like leather holsters anymore because they're scared it will flex and set off the light, short trigger of their striker fired pistol. People are told to be cautious with loose shirts or drawstrings when reholstering specifically due to striker fired pistols. Excuses have been made for the P320 because it's possible that keys or handcuffs had a .0001% chance of sliding into the trigger guard and setting it off, and this possibility only existed because it's a striker fired pistol.

The "glock-like" striker fired pistol that has taken over the handgun market has always been a compromise to safety because it meant that military/police forces could save money on ammo and training hours compared to getting recruits to proficiency with a DA/SA or DAO pistol. And the entire handgun industry got away with it.

>>64067640
OK retard.

>>64067678
Of course but no one would recommend carrying a 1911 condition 0.

>>64067678
The 1911 is unironically a more safety conscientious design than modern striker fired guns outside of Glock and a handful of other less popular designs like the P99. Safety was a driving factor throughout the design of the firearm and it was pretty impressive for its time in regards to that.

>>64067640
>DAO
>perfect
Yes.

>>64067780
>I own something, therefor it's the best

>>64067753
DA/SA is peak for service pistols.

>>64067780
For a snubnose revolver, DAO is fine, but for automatics it's a waste to not recock on each cycle.

>>64067812
DA/SA is peak for competent shooters. For service pistols DAO is better.

>the consumer is responsible for their own injuries caused by an intentionally defective product if they know or suspect said product is defective

What??

>>64067780
DAK is a crime against humanity, the one truly bad action

>>64068083
https://app.midpage.ai/document/desrosiers-v-sig-sauer-inc-1000443672875

The "defect" being discussed is the lack of an external safety. Desrosiers, a police officer and jew impersonator, was arguing that Sig should not even be allowed to sell a gun with no external safety.

>>64065730
>Mr. Plaintiff, were you aware that, under certain circumstances, the P320 can discharge on its own?
Yes.
>And yet you continued carrying your P320 daily?
Yes.
>No further questions, Your Honor.

>>64068083
Product liability cases are strict liability, meaning that a company can be held liable for producing a product no matter how careful they are in the design or marketing of the product. The rationale is that, as the manufacturer, they have superior knowledge and so if shit goes wrong they ought to bear the cost.

Naturally, this can make it difficult to actually sell dangerous products like chemicals, cars, or guns. So as part of a tort reform push decades ago, many jurisdictions now recognize that the consumer can assume the risk. If, in essence, his knowledge of the risk equals the manufacturer's knowledge, the reason for holding the company liable has evaporated and so the company shouldn't be liable.