Shepherd v SIG - Product liability

[Euler]

On November 4, Joshua Shepherd filed the complaint in the Federal District Court of Southern Illinois. (docket)

Complaint said:

This case concerns a defectively designed pistol, the Sig Sauer P320. Sig Sauer designed the P320 without any external safety features, even though the pistol is effectively cocked (i.e., ready to fire) the moment a round is chambered. ...

But Sig Sauer does not tell consumers about the P320's Defect. Nor does Sig Sauer warn consumers that the P320 is extraordinarily dangerous compared to similar pistols. ...

This case seeks to hold Sig Sauer responsible for selling a needlessly dangerous product to consumers through unfair and deceptive practices in violation of Illinois law. ...
...

It's important to realize that this case follows in the footsteps of the only type of case to succeed against SIG for the P320.

1. The case does not allege that there is a malfunction. It effectively stipulates that all unintended discharges are negligent.
2. The negligent discharges are the result of a design which includes a light trigger and no external safety. (In other words, the lack of an external safety is a product defect.)
3. The design of the firearm is SIG's responsibility. Therefore the negligent discharges are SIG's responsibility.

The complaint cites several cases, none of which involve Shepherd, of unintended discharge in the news as evidence. Shepherd himself has not had an unintended discharge (at least he hasn't included one in his complaint).

[Euler]

On November 24, the case was reassigned to Judge Phil Gilbert.

On December 1, the case was reassigned to Judge Staci Yandle.

Yandle also has Meyer v Raoul and NSSF v Raoul, which haven't had anything happen for a while.

[Euler]

On August 19, the judge set the following schedule:

2026
10/02: scheduling conference (presumably for all the other things before the trial)

2028
6/15: final pretrial conference
6/26: jury trial

[JTHunter]

On 8/19/2026 at 8:18 PM, Euler said:

On August 19, the judge set the following schedule:

2026
10/02: scheduling conference (presumably for all the other things before the trial)

2028
6/15: final pretrial conference
6/26: jury trial

 

Unfortunately, that sounds like the usual "delay & deny" action so many of these "judges" have been using.

[Euler]

On September 30, the judge canceled the scheduling conference set for October 2 and set the following schedule, instead:

2027
10/01: plaintiff's motion for class certification due
11/01: defendant's opposition to class certification due

2028
06/15: final pretrial conference
06/26: jury trial