Corporate Counsel Daily, Jury finds in favor of firearm manufacturer in accidental discharge case, (Aug 19, 2026)

By Molly Platnick

Injured former detective could not prove strict products liability, negligence, or breach of warranty of merchantability.

A federal jury in the District of Maine found in favor of firearm manufacturer Sig Sauer in a case brought by a former detective who was injured when his pistol accidently discharged. The detective’s complaint alleged Sig Sauer was liable for strict products liability, negligence, and breach of warranty of merchantability because it expressly misrepresented the subject pistol as safe. The detective and his wife sought punitive damages, arguing Sig Sauer acted with malice. The jury decided the couple did not adequately plead any of its claims and denied damages on all counts (Cole v. Sig Sauer, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00327-JCN (D. Me. Aug. 7, 2026)).

Background. The husband was a detective in Somerset County Sheriff’s Department and was issued a Sig Sauer P320 pistol as his service firearm. In May 2022, the husband’s weapon allegedly unintentionally discharged when his “hands were not on the P320 and his finger was not on the trigger.” The bullet went in and out of his upper thigh, penetrating his right calf, and stayed lodged in his right ankle until he underwent emergency surgery. In his complaint, the detective stated Sig Sauer’s “actions and/or omissions” regarding the P320 caused him “severe and permanent personal injuries.”

The detective claimed Sig Sauer knowingly and expressly misrepresented the P320 as safe, when it does not comply with “industry standard safety features” and is prone to discharging without the user deliberately pulling the trigger. The complaint reproduced Sig Sauer’s allegedly false advertising and listed over 120 “other similar incidents.” The detective sought punitive damages, accusing Sig Sauer of acting with “actual or implied malice” in manufacturing and market the P320 pistol.

The detective and his wife also asserted claims for (1) negligence, (2) strict products liability, (3) fraudulent concealment, (4) failure to warn, (5) manufacturing or design defect, (6) breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and (7) loss of consortium.

Jury verdict. The jury found in favor of Sig Sauer on the strict product liability, negligence, and breach of warranty of merchantability claims. It determined the P320 pistol was fit for its ordinary purpose because it was not defective in its design or condition and was not unreasonably dangerous. According to the jury, the detective and his wife could not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Sig Sauer intentionally or negligently failed to provide adequate warnings about the risks associated with using the pistol. The jury did not reach whether product defect, negligence, or breach of warranty were legal causes for the detective’s injuries. Because the jury answered “no” to all questions on the verdict form, it did not award the couple any damages.

The case is No. 1:23-cv-00327-JCN.

Attorneys: Larry Bendesky (Saltz Mongeluzzi & Bendesky PC) for David Cole and Kimberly Cole. Brian Keith Gibson (Littleton Joyce Ughetta & Kelly LLP) and Douglas F. Hartman (Hartman Law, P.C.) for Sig Sauer Inc.

Companies: Sig Sauer Inc.

MainStory: TopStory CourtDecisions JuryVerdictsNewsStory WeaponsFirearmsNews DesignManufacturingNews WarningsNews MaineNews GCNNews