Breaking: Wrongful Death Lawsuit Filed Against Gunmaker Sig Sauer After Local Business Owner Shot, Killed At Home By His Holstered, Defectively-Designed P320 Pistol

PHILADELPHIA, Dec. 04, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Just days after a Philadelphia jury returned an $11 million damages verdict against embattled gunmaker Sig Sauer, Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky late yesterday filed a wrongful death lawsuit (Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, No. 2412006579) after 41-year-old Roman Neshin last month was killed by his holstered Sig Sauer P320, according to Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky, which represents Mr. Neshin’s widow and young daughter.

Mr. Neshin, a beloved husband and father (pictured with his daughter), was well known among his family, friends and neighbors for being a caring father, loving husband, knowledgeable computer technician, and responsible gun owner. His October 1^st shooting death – caused when his Sig Sauer P320 pistol suddenly fired a single bullet through its holster and into his right groin – and is now the latest P320 unintended shooting to result in a lawsuit. The Complaint, filed in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, also names as a defendant the dealer that delivered Mr. Neshin the pistol.

Sig Sauer is the only gunmaker to make a mass-produced sidearm that lacks an external safety to guard against unintended discharges. The Bucks County Coroner, in ruling the death accidental, confirmed that fragments of the holster’s plastic were embedded in Mr. Neshin’s leg, and that his massive bleeding caused Mr. Neshin’s death following the unintended firing.

Robert Zimmerman, part of the family’s legal team from Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky, which includes attorneys Ryan Hurd and Samuel Haaz, said, “In our most recent P320 trial, Sig Sauer’s engineer admitted under oath that in 2016-2017 Sig Sauer identified hazards of the P320’s design that placed the gun at risk for unintended discharges, including discharges caused by foreign objects and holstering and/or unholstering the weapon. Sig Sauer assessed that the risk could kill its users. This latest Complaint tragically proves Sig’s risk assessment was right; their defectively-designed P320 ended a young husband and father’s life. Sig Sauer identified that the hazard could be reduced with an external safety, yet sold the vast majority of P320 models without an external safety available even as an option.”

Mr. Zimmerman added, “Roman’s family should have been gathered around their Thanksgiving table last week, celebrating the holiday and giving thanks to living what for them was the American Dream. Instead, Maryia Gomelskaya, Roman’s wife and mother of their daughter, is grieving his preventable loss. Roman bled to death on the floor of his suburban home office amid his child’s freshly blood-smeared artwork.”

Ryan Hurd, Mr. Zimmerman’s co-counsel, added, “This was an unspeakable tragedy, and now, at the direction of his loved ones, we are seeking to hold Sig Sauer accountable. We intend to demonstrate at trial that, although Sig Sauer’s safety pledge states that the gun ‘won’t fire unless you want it to’ the P320 can fire even when the user doesn’t want it to. We intend to prove that Roman would be alive today if Sig Sauer equipped its gun with an external safety which other competitor manufacturers include for the safety of their users.”

The newly-filed complaint outlines Sig Sauer’s disregard for the safety of its own P320 owners, stating in part: “At no time did Sig Sauer require that each P320 include at least one external safety like its competitors who make this type of pistol. Indeed, it continued to sell P320s with no external safeties to consumers, like Roman Neshin, even when Sig Sauer knew of the unreasonable risks and danger associated with unintended discharges due to the P320’s design.” 

The filing on behalf of Mr. Neshin closely follows the $11 million jury damages verdict against Sig Sauer on behalf of U.S. Army veteran George Abrahams. He was also shot by his own Sig Sauer P320 pistol firing while it was in its holster. The jury found that Sig Sauer defectively designed the P320, was negligent in selling the gun, and showed reckless indifference to the rights of others in the distribution of the pistol. Nearly identical claims were also central in a Georgia P320 unintended shooting case (Lang v. Sig Sauer, 1:21-cv-04196, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia) that resulted in a federal jury verdict against Sig Sauer in the amount of $2.35 million.

Every P320 sold to the military featured an external safety to guard against unintended, uncommanded firing. However, the vast majority of P320 models sold to the public and police do not have an external safety, even as an option. Sig Sauer also originally designed a trigger safety for the P320 that was used widely within the industry, but inexplicably scrapped the design before P320s were put into production.

SMB represents more than 100 P320 victims injured by Sig Sauer’s first striker-fired (in contrast to a traditional hammer) pistol. The firm continues to uncover more instances of unintended discharges. All of its clients seek to hold Sig Sauer accountable for the defectively designed gun, call upon the company to avoid injuring or killing other victims through the use of safeties that are standard features on pistols from other gun manufacturers. The P320 has been the subject of controversy, litigation, and media scrutiny for years. Last year it was featured in a joint investigation by The Washington Post, joining other national investigative reports.

Additional related information on the Sig Sauer litigation – and the gun’s troubled history – can be found at www.SMB_SigSauerCases.

Contacts:
Robert W. Zimmerman / rzimmerman@smbb.com / 215-575-3898
Steph Rosenfeld / steph@idadvisors.com / 215-514-4101

A photo accompanying this announcement is available at https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/da3efd8a-1e00-49c8-ab93-8bcf9cb31a3d