FOLLOW US

Case Insights

A federal appeals court has breathed new life into a significant products liability lawsuit against firearms manufacturer Sig Sauer, ruling that an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer's case over an accidental P320 discharge can proceed to trial. The decision highlights ongoing safety concerns with the controversial pistol model and establishes important precedent for similar cases nationwide. By Samuel Lopez – USA Herald The legal battle over Sig Sauer's P320 pistol has taken a decisive turn as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that former Marine and ICE officer Keith Slatowski can present his $10 million negligence case to a jury, despite limitations on expert testimony that initially derailed his lawsuit. This decision, filed August 1, 2025, underscores the complex intersection of firearms design, officer safety, and corporate liability in an era where law enforcement agencies nationwide have adopted the P320 as their standard-issue sidearm. The case stems from a September 2020 training incident at a New Castle, Delaware firing range that forever changed Slatowski's life. During what should have been routine quarterly firearms training, Slatowski's holstered P320 discharged without warning, sending a bullet through his upper right hip and out his thigh. "He says he did not touch the trigger, but only the grip," the court record states, painting a picture of a weapon that fired despite the officer's adherence to standard safety protocols. The incident occurred as Slatowski was preparing to draw his weapon after completing approximately four magazines of training rounds. According to court documents, the officer had reloaded his weapon and properly holstered it before the unexpected discharge that would launch years of litigation. Central to Slatowski's lawsuit is the P320's unique design characteristics that distinguish it from traditional law enforcement firearms. Unlike double-action pistols that require the trigger to both cock and release the firing mechanism, the P320 operates as a single-action weapon with what experts describe as an unusually sensitive trigger system. Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas, writing for the three-judge panel, explained the technical complexity: "Like a coiled spring in a mousetrap, the cocked firing mechanism stores explosive energy, requiring less of a tug on the trigger." The P320's design philosophy centers on internal safety mechanisms rather than external safeguards. While military versions of the weapon include thumb safeties, the law enforcement variant issued to Slatowski relied solely on two internal systems: a spring-loaded sear mechanism and a safety lock that can be disengaged with as little as 1/13th of an inch of trigger movement—approximately the thickness of a quarter.

The Legal Strategy and Expert Testimony Battle

Slatowski's legal team, led by attorney Robert Zimmerman of Saltz Mongeluzzi & Bendesky, assembled a formidable array of expert witnesses to challenge Sig Sauer's design choices. The case featured testimony from Dr. James Tertin, a gunsmith who characterized the P320 as "unique among single-action pistols and uniquely dangerous," and Dr. William Vigilante Jr., a firearms instructor with expertise in ergonomics.