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.

The experts argued that alternative safety designs, particularly a "tabbed trigger" system that requires deliberate, centered finger placement, could have prevented the accidental discharge. This mini-trigger attachment functions similarly to an external safety, forcing shooters to engage the trigger mechanism intentionally.

However, the district court initially excluded crucial portions of the expert testimony, ruling that neither expert had conducted specific testing to simulate the conditions of Slatowski's accident. This exclusion led District Judge R. Barclay Surrick to grant summary judgment in favor of Sig Sauer, effectively ending the case before trial.

Appeals Court Reversal: A Victory for Jury Determination

The Third Circuit's reversal represents a significant shift in how courts evaluate complex products liability cases involving firearms. Judge Bibas's opinion emphasizes the fundamental principle that juries, not judges, should determine factual disputes when adequate evidence exists.

"The P320's design is technical and probably needs explaining," Bibas wrote. "From there, ... Slatowski must rely on his lay eyewitness testimony. It may not prove persuasive. But that is up to the jury, not the judge."

The appellate court distinguished between expert testimony needed to explain complex technical concepts and testimony required to establish causation. While upholding the exclusion of expert opinions about what specifically caused the discharge, the court ruled that experts could still testify about the weapon's design defects.

The Human Cost Behind Legal Precedent

Beyond the technical legal arguments lies the personal impact on Keith Slatowski and his wife Bianca, who joined the lawsuit. The couple's attorney, Robert Zimmerman, expressed gratitude for the opportunity to present their case: "Our clients are thankful for the opportunity to present their case to a jury."

The case highlights the unique vulnerabilities faced by law enforcement officers who must rely on department-issued equipment in high-stress situations. Unlike civilian gun owners who can choose their firearms and safety accessories, officers typically must use whatever weapon their agency provides.

Industry Response and Safety Considerations

Sig Sauer's legal team, represented by attorneys from Littleton Joyce Ughetta & Kelly and VSCP Law, has consistently defended the P320's design as safe and effective. The company has argued that proper training and handling procedures prevent accidental discharges.

Looking Ahead: Trial Preparation and Precedent Setting

With the case now returning to District Judge Surrick for trial proceedings, both sides face the challenge of presenting complex technical evidence to a lay jury. The success of Slatowski's case will likely depend on his credibility as a witness and the jury's assessment of whether alternative safety designs could have prevented his injury.

The trial will serve as a crucial test of whether products liability law can effectively address firearms safety concerns while respecting Second Amendment considerations and industry practices.

Legal observers anticipate that the outcome could influence similar pending litigation and potentially prompt design modifications across the firearms industry.

🛑 It should be noted that the assertions in Keith Slatowski's lawsuit are merely allegations and have not been proven in a court of law.

Sources:

Slatowski et al v Sig Sauer Inc, 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-1639 (2025)

Davis v. Sig Sauer, 126 F.4th 1213 (6th Cir. 2025)

Herman v. Sig Sauer, 2025 WL 1672350 (10th Cir. June 13, 2025)