Firearm Manufacturer Sig Sauer’s Expert Witness Strategy Rejected by Sixth Circuit

Sig Sauer Inc.'s attempt to disqualify expert witnesses in a lawsuit over its P320 pistol suffered a setback when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit overturned a lower court ruling that had excluded two key experts. The case, brought by Timothy Davis, alleges that his P320 discharged into his leg without the trigger being pulled.

A divided three-judge panel ruled that Davis' expert witnesses—firearms specialist James Tertin and human factors expert Dr. William J. Vigilante Jr.—should be allowed to testify that the gunmaker could have implemented a safer design. This decision reverses a Kentucky federal court’s ruling that had excluded their testimony and granted summary judgment in favor of Sig Sauer.

The ruling also has broader implications as Sig Sauer has used similar legal strategies to disqualify experts in other cases. The company secured summary judgment dismissals in two similar lawsuits in Pennsylvania and Oklahoma, both of which are now under appeal in the Third and Tenth Circuits.

The Expert Testimony Dispute

At the heart of the case is whether the P320's design is defective and whether Sig Sauer failed to incorporate reasonable safety features. Tertin and Vigilante contended that alternative safety mechanisms, which exist in other handguns, could have prevented accidental discharges. The experts' opinions were initially excluded by the district court, which found that they had not directly investigated the circumstances of Davis' misfire and could not determine whether a defect caused the injury.

However, the Sixth Circuit panel ruled that this did not make their testimony entirely inadmissible. "Both Tertin and Vigilante help [the jury] answer this question by explaining how the P320 works, what makes it unreasonably susceptible to inadvertent actuation, and how reasonable alternative designs could have prevented Davis's injury," the panel stated.

The Dissenting Opinion

Judge Amul Roger Thapar dissented, arguing that neither expert could determine what specifically caused Davis’ pistol to fire. He also emphasized that Davis knowingly purchased a firearm without an external safety, stating that such guns allow users to "draw, aim, and fire at a moment’s notice, warding off danger and saving themselves and their loved ones from harm. That’s a feature, not a bug."

Despite this, the majority found that under Kentucky law, a design defect claim does not turn on whether the buyer knowingly purchased a firearm without certain safety features. "The appropriate question is whether Sig Sauer acted prudently in its design of the P320, not whether Davis acted prudently in his decision to purchase the P320," the ruling stated, citing a 1980 Kentucky Supreme Court precedent.

The Broader Implications

The ruling sets the stage for potential reversals of Sig Sauer's victories in the Third and Tenth Circuit cases, where the company used the same strategy to disqualify expert witnesses. Attorney Robert W. Zimmerman of Saltz Mongeluzzi & Bendesky PC, who represents Davis and several other plaintiffs, noted that the decision could impact nearly 200 similar claims involving the P320.

"We believe the Sixth Circuit correctly reversed the trial court's summary judgment order. The Davis case is substantially similar to the [John Tyler] Herman case in the Tenth Circuit," Zimmerman said. "We hope Sig Sauer will take this ruling seriously and finally commit to recalling this weapon."

Davis' lawsuit follows two high-profile cases in Georgia federal court and Pennsylvania state court that resulted in multimillion-dollar verdicts for plaintiffs alleging similar defects in the P320.

What’s Next?

With the Sixth Circuit's ruling reviving Davis' lawsuit, the case will proceed toward trial unless Sig Sauer appeals the decision to the full Sixth Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the pending appeals in the Third and Tenth Circuits will likely consider the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in determining whether Sig Sauer's expert disqualification tactics hold up.

Sig Sauer is represented by Littleton Park Joyce Ughetta & Kelly LLP and Stites & Harbison PLLC. Davis is represented by Saltz Mongeluzzi & Bendesky PC and Morris & Player PLLC.

The case is Davis v. Sig Sauer Inc., Case No. 24-5210, in the Sixth Circuit.