Case 1:18-cv-00540-LMB-IDD Document 1 Filed 05/04/18 Page 1 of 27 PageID# 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
__________________________________________
MARCIE D. VADNAIS,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Plaintiff,
v.
SIG SAUER, INC.
Defendant.
__________________________________________

CIVIL ACTION NO.:

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
May 4, 2018

COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Marcie D. Vadnais (“Vadnais”), for her Complaint seeking damages, equitable
relief, and judgment against defendant Sig Sauer, Inc. (“SIG”), alleges as follows:
NATURE OF ACTION
This action arises from defendant Sig Sauer, Inc.’s negligence and deceptive marketing
practices regarding a semi-automatic firearm. Specifically, a semi-automatic gun known as
the P320.
On February 7, 2018, Vadnais, a seven-year veteran of the Loudoun County, Virginia
Sheriff’s Department, was removing her fully-holstered P320 from her duty belt. In the process
of removing the holster, the gun fired one round into her thigh, shattering her femur in several

 Case 1:18-cv-00540-LMB-IDD Document 1 Filed 05/04/18 Page 2 of 27 PageID# 2

places and causing massive blood loss and other internal injuries. At no time during this
incident did she touch the trigger, which at all times was inside and covered by a SIG1

manufactured holster.

On impact with her femur, the discharged round broke into many pieces, leaving
numerous pieces of shrapnel and bone shards within her leg. Emergency room surgeons
inserted a steel rod to make it possible for Vadnais to walk. It is attached to her pelvis and knee
with screws and will remain there the rest of her life.
Vadnais’s P320 never should have discharged without the trigger being touched,
holstered or un-holstered. In its “Safety Without Compromise” marketing materials for
the P320, SIG states:
“We’ve designed safety elements into every necessary feature on this pistol. From the
trigger, to the striker and even the magazine, the P320 won’t fire unless you want it to.”
Despite this express representation, which SIG has made for the last several years to
the present day, the weapon fired without the trigger being touched.
Vadnais brings a cause of action seeking actual, compensatory, and punitive damages
under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110(b), for unfair and
deceptive trade practices in their marketing of the weapon, as further described below. She
1

In the weapons industry, this type of discharge is typically referred to as an inadvertent or
unintended discharge in which the weapon fires without a trigger pull. ​See, e.g., O’Neal v. Remington
Arms Co., LLC​, 817 F.3d 1055, 1060 (8​th​ Cir. 2015) (referring to “inadvertent discharge” of weapon
“without the trigger being pulled”).

2

 Case 1:18-cv-00540-LMB-IDD Document 1 Filed 05/04/18 Page 3 of 27 PageID# 3

also brings causes of action under Connecticut common law for negligent and intentional
infliction of emotional distress in view of Sig’s misleading representations about the safety of the
weapon, as well as the company’s knowledge, more than a year before February 2018, that the
weapon required immediate and significant modifications to make it less prone to fire without
the trigger being pulled. Had those changes been made when they should have been, Vadnais’s
thigh bone would not have been blown in half.
SIG, upon information and belief, fixed defects in the prototype military version of
the P320, installing a lighter trigger and internal modifications to prevent unintended discharges,
as early as 2016, while competing to obtain a contract worth more than $580,000,000 with the
United States Army. It successfully obtained the latter in January 2017.
Despite knowledge of safety defects with the P320 as early as 2016, however, SIG
has negligently and recklessly failed to issue a mandatory recall of the commercial version,
owned by civilians and law enforcement agencies all over the country.
JURISDICTION
1.

Jurisdiction is founded on diversity of ​citizenship​ pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Plaintiff Vadnais is a citizen of the United States and the Commonwealth of Virginia. Defendant
Sig Sauer, Inc. has a principal place of ​business​ in New Hampshire. The amount in controversy
exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, $75,000.

3

 Case 1:18-cv-00540-LMB-IDD Document 1 Filed 05/04/18 Page 4 of 27 PageID# 4

VENUE
2.

Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) as a

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the action occurred in this district.
PARTIES
3.

Vadnais is a natural person and resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia, who

suffered severe, permanent physical injury as a direct and proximate result of the negligence
and breach of warranties and deceptive marketing practices of SIG.
4.

Sig Sauer, Inc. designs and manufactures firearms for military and commercial

In Virginia, across the United States, and internationally.
It markets and sells its products through dealers. Sig Sauer, Inc. was formerly known
as SIGARMS, Inc. and changed its name to SIG SAUER, Inc. in October 2007. The company
was founded in 1985 and has its principal place of business in Newington, New Hampshire.
ALLEGATIONS
5.

The incident occurred on the morning of February 7, 2018 while Vadnais was

arriving for a General Instructor Course at the Northern Virginia Criminal Justice Academy
(NVCJA).
6.

Because NVCJA policy prohibits live rounds and weapons in the Academy other

than for staff members, she was required to remove her holstered pistol from her right hip
before she entered the premises.
7.

The round discharged from the weapon without the trigger or gun being touched,

4

 Case 1:18-cv-00540-LMB-IDD Document 1 Filed 05/04/18 Page 5 of 27 PageID# 5

while she was in the process of removing her SIG-issued paddle holster, with the pistol
contained within it, from her right hip.
8.

Vadnais placed her right hand on the largest portion of the holster and used her

left hand to feed her 5-11 nylon belt through the teeth of the holster.
9.

While feeding her belt through the first tooth of the holster, the P320 fired one

nine millimeter bullet, which hit her in the upper right thigh. The round shattered her right femur
in half, narrowly missed her femoral artery, and broke apart into many pieces.
10.

X-rays taken after the incident show the massive damage to her right leg, along

with shrapnel and bone fragments that will remain in her leg for the indefinite future.
11.

Her physicians currently estimate that there is a 20% chance they will try to

remove them in a year, if it can be done without further damage to her leg and femur. The latter
bone will be held in place for the rest of her life by a steel rod secured to her knee with two
screws, and to her hip joint with one.
12.

While the full extent of the physical damage to her leg is not yet known, it is

likely
that she will have trouble ever running or walking normally again, and may not be able to return
to her position as a result.
13.

The incident has resulted in substantial physical harm and related trauma to

Vadnais, 37, who has received substantial and ongoing pain-killing narcotics to deal with the
injury and function on a day-to-day basis.
14.

Years before the incident occurred, through and including the date of the incident

5

 Case 1:18-cv-00540-LMB-IDD Document 1 Filed 05/04/18 Page 6 of 27 PageID# 6

and the present day, SIG expressly represented that “[w]e’ve designed safety elements into
every necessary feature on this pistol. From the trigger, to the striker and even the magazine,
the P320 won’t fire unless you want it to”:

15.

In additional marketing material, under the heading “Striker Safety,” defendant

SIG SAUER further states: The Striker Safety “[p]revents the striker from releasing ​unless
the trigger is pulled​.” (emphasis added).
16.

At the same time, SIG SAUER contradictorily stated in the original owner’s

manual for the P320, on page 25, that the weapon may fire if dropped without the trigger being

6

 Case 1:18-cv-00540-LMB-IDD Document 1 Filed 05/04/18 Page 7 of 27 PageID# 7

pulled if the chamber is not empty.
17.

It is, however, standard operating procedure for all U.S. law enforcement

agencies, local police departments, and the military, at a commander’s discretion, to carry
pistols with a chambered round.
18.

SIG was aware of this fact at the time it designed and manufactured all its pistols

including the P320.
19.

Sometime in 2017, after a Connecticut law enforcement agent was shot by

a P320 when it fell to the ground from less than three feet, it accordingly removed the warning
on page 25 regarding carrying a chambered round, and replaced it with the following language:

(emphasis in original).
20.

SIG had never before represented that mere “vibration” could cause the weapon

to discharge.
21.

Moreover, it had also expressly represented since its manufacture and

distribution into the stream of commerce that the weapon was also drop safe without a safety:

7

 Case 1:18-cv-00540-LMB-IDD Document 1 Filed 05/04/18 Page 8 of 27 PageID# 8

22.

SIG’s original design and manufacture of the P320 in 2014, or earlier, rendered

the weapon unreasonably dangerous for its intended uses, and for any foreseeable uses and
accidents involving its intended uses, at the time SIG sold it to Vadnais’s Department.

8

 Case 1:18-cv-00540-LMB-IDD Document 1 Filed 05/04/18 Page 9 of 27 PageID# 9

23.

Specifically, upon information and belief, the mass and weight of the P320 trigger

was far too large and heavy, rendering the weapon susceptible of inertia-based discharges. In
addition, it lacked a mechanical disconnect device within the weapon (which has since been
added for purchasers who ask SIG to install one), possessed an inadequate sear, and any
external safety or tabbed trigger safety.
24.

When in June 2017 SIG shipped approximately 700 P320s to the Loudoun

County Sheriff’s Department where Vadnais was employed, it knew, or should have known, that
the weapon was defective and unreasonably dangerous for its ordinary uses, intended uses,
and all other foreseeable uses and accidental discharges that could occur in the ordinary course
of using the weapon.
25.

Before it shipped these weapons, it was aware of accidental discharges

of the P320 weapon, and other SIG pistols, many of which pre-dated and post-dated, the
June 2017 sale to the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Department.
26.

Upon information and belief, there had been many prior incidents of unintended

discharges involving SIG weapons that have discharged without the trigger being pulled, or
simply while being handled, accidentally dropped, or while being holstered.
27.

For example, from 2005 to January 2011, the San Francisco Police Department

reported 29 accidental discharges (a time when it issued SIG Sauers as its primary sidearm).
28.

In 2002, a San Fernando police officer dropped his SIG Sauer, causing an

9

 Case 1:18-cv-00540-LMB-IDD Document 1 Filed 05/04/18 Page 10 of 27 PageID# 10

accidental discharge that killed him, refuting claims the trigger must be pulled to fire the gun.

29.

In 2008, an officer in Connecticut accidentally discharged his SIG Sauer while

holstering it.
30.

In 2011, a security guard in St. Louis dropped his SIG Sauer, unintentionally

shooting someone.
31.

In 2012, a New York transit officer accidentally discharged his SIG Sauer while

holstering it.
32.

In 2014, a federal air marshal in New Jersey unintentionally shot himself while

handling his SIG Sauer service weapon.
33.

In 2015, a Pennsylvania state trooper and firearms instructor accidentally killed

another trooper with his SIG Sauer while conducting safety training.
34.

In 2016, a tactical response training instructor near Sacramento dropped his SIG

Sauer, firing a bullet into a student’s truck.
35.

In the period between 2012 and 2015, the New York City Police Department

reported 10 accidental discharges involving Sig Sauer weapons.
36.

In 2017, a sheriff’s deputy in Michigan accidentally discharged his SIG Sauer,

striking a schoolteacher in the neck.
37.

On January 5, 2017, a P320 shot a Stamford SWAT team member in his left

knee when the pistol fell from a distance of less than three feet to the ground while fully

10

 Case 1:18-cv-00540-LMB-IDD Document 1 Filed 05/04/18 Page 11 of 27 PageID# 11

holstered, refuting SIG’s express representations that the weapon is drop safe, and does not
require a safety to be drop safe.

38.

On February 28, 2017, a P320 accidentally discharged while in use by the

University of Cincinnati Police Department.
39.

On June 14, 2017, a P320 accidentally discharged in Wilsonville, Oregon.

40.

On June 20, 2017, a P320 accidentally discharged while in use by the Howell

Township, NJ Police Department.
41.

In June of 2017, SIG shipped approximately 800 P320s to the Loudoun County

Sheriff’s Department, privately assuring its leadership that the problems with the weapon would
be fixed, but that “for now,” it had to deal with the weapon as currently manufactured and
designed.
42.

On July 28, 2017, a P320 accidentally discharged in Tarrant County, Texas.

43.

On August 4, 2017, a Stamford SWAT team member sued SIG in U.S. District

Court in Connecticut for an accidental discharge of a commercial version of the P320 which shot
him in his knee.
44.

On August 8, 2017, SIG’s CEO released a statement stating: “there have been

zero (0) reported drop-related P320 incidents in the U.S. Commercial market.”
45.

This was statement was false, in view of SIG’s knowledge that Officer

Sheperis in Connecticut had been shot by a drop fire some eight months earlier with the

11

 Case 1:18-cv-00540-LMB-IDD Document 1 Filed 05/04/18 Page 12 of 27 PageID# 12

commercial version of the P320, and that several other accidental discharges of the P320 had
occurred before that date.
46.

On August 8, 2017, SIG announced a “voluntary upgrade” program for the P320

pistol, stating that the pistol meets “rigorous testing protocols for global military and law
enforcement agencies.”
47.

The upgrade program, which was presented to the public as purely optional, not

urgent, and not mandatory, offered to make existing commercial versions of the P320 “better” by
installing a much lighter trigger, and internal disconnect switch, and an improved sear to prevent
accidental discharges.
48.

On August 9, 2017, the police chief of Morrow, Georgia issued an emergency

order removing the P320 from service.
49.

On August 16, 2017, the Dallas Police Department issued a recall of the P320

due to drop safety concerns, prohibiting its use by officers until repaired. In an
interdepartmental memo, it stated:
Sig​ Sauer has identified that there is a defect in the P320 ​handgun​ that could cause the
weapon system to go off when dropped. The Sig Sauer P320 was approved for primary
duty, secondary primary duty, and back-up use. The Firearms Training Center is
currently working with ​Sig​ Sauer to obtain a solution for the safety issue. Until Sig Sauer
is able to find a solution to the safety issue, the Sig Sauer P320 is no longer approved by
the Dallas Police Department for any use​.
50.

In October 2017, a P320 accidentally discharged in Georgia when an officer fell

to the ground in pursuit of a suspect. His weapon was holstered and fired simply when he
struck the ground.

12

 Case 1:18-cv-00540-LMB-IDD Document 1 Filed 05/04/18 Page 13 of 27 PageID# 13

51.

On November 12, 2017, a P320 accidentally discharged in Tyler, Texas.

52.

In January 2018, upon information and belief, a P320 accidentally discharged in

Dallas County, Texas.
53.

On February 7, 2018, as noted, Vadnais’s P320 accidentally discharged in

Virginia, severing her right femur and causing massive blood loss.
54.

Upon information and belief, employees at Sig Sauer’s own training academy in

New Hampshire have admitted to accidental discharges causing injury in both 2016 and 2017.
55.

To date, SIG has never issued a mandatory recall of the P320 for repairs, though

it has done so in the past for other of its products.
56.

In an interview in 2013, SIG’s Chief Financial Officer, Timothy Scullin, noted

that
Sig’s revenue rose approximately 1,400 percent from 2012 to 2013 and stated that Sig Sauer’s
Growth has outpaced its industry’s growth by “two or three times.”
57.

When asked what some of his biggest professional challenges he has faced in

his career, he stated:
At SIG, to grow this fast, people get really challenged. When you’re growing 70 to 80
percent in a year, all the systems get stretched, and the people really get stretched.
You have to be able to manage multiple tasks in a very fast environment, and in an
environment that’s highly regulated, so you can’t mess up, otherwise you get shut down.
It just creates a tremendous of stress on the people in the system. But we’ve got people
that have risen to the challenge.

13

 Case 1:18-cv-00540-LMB-IDD Document 1 Filed 05/04/18 Page 14 of 27 PageID# 14

COUNT I
NEGLIGENCE
(FAILURE TO WARN, NEGLIGENT ASSEMBLY OR MANUFACTURE, NEGLIGENT
DESIGN)
58.

Vadnais readopts and re-alleges all of the preceding paragraphs of this pleading

as if fully set forth herein.
59.

At all relevant times, SIG owed Vadnais the duty to design the P320 weapon

In such a manner and with the exercise of reasonable care, so as to prevent it from firing upon
her merely handling the holster in which it was situated before selling the gun and placing it into
the stream of commerce. To the extent SIG did not owe this duty under existing Virginia law, it
assumed such a duty by virtue of its past conduct.
60.

At all relevant times, SIG owed Vadnais the duty to manufacture, assemble,

inspect and/or test its P320s in such a manner and with the exercise of reasonable care,
so as to prevent it from firing upon her merely handling the holster in which it was
situated, before selling the gun and placing it into the stream of commerce. To the extent
the SIG did not owe this duty under existing Virginia law, it assumed such a duty by virtue of its
past conduct in recalling other defective weapons from the marketplace.
61.

At all relevant times, SIG owed a duty to unambiguously and adequately warn

consumers and/or intended users of the P320, including Vadnais, of known or suspected
defects that rendered the gun unreasonably dangerous to handle or use. Upon information and
belief, SIG knew or had reason to know that the P320 posed an unreasonable risk of harm by

14

 Case 1:18-cv-00540-LMB-IDD Document 1 Filed 05/04/18 Page 15 of 27 PageID# 15

virtue of informal and formal claims arising from substantially similar incidents pre-dating this
lawsuit, internal testing and research, industry publications and research, and other sources of
information to be developed in discovery. To the extent SIG did not owe this duty under existing
Virginia law, it assumed such a duty by virtue of its past conduct in recalling other defective
weapons from the marketplace.
62.

SIG breached the above-cited duties in various ways, including but not limited to,

one or more of the following negligent acts:
i.

By failing to use due care in designing and manufacturing the P320’s trigger,

including but not limited to its mass and weight, so as to prevent accidental discharges;
ii.

By failing to use due care in designing and manufacturing the P320’s internal

components, including its sear, and by omitting a mechanical disconnect switch, so as to
prevent accidental discharges;
iii.

By failing to issue a mandatory recall of the P320 as SIG had done in the past

with other defective products, and instead announcing a “voluntary upgrade” of the weapon,
which it knew to be defective and prone to accidental discharges based on all available
information in SIG’s possession as of August 2017, if not much earlier;
iv.

By failing to make reasonable tests and/or inspections to discover the defective,

hazardous and unreasonably dangerous conditions relating to the gun’s propensity to discharge
accidentally as described above;
v.

By negligently failing to unambiguously and adequately warn purchasers and end

15

 Case 1:18-cv-00540-LMB-IDD Document 1 Filed 05/04/18 Page 16 of 27 PageID# 16

users of the gun, including Vadnais, of said defective, hazardous and unreasonably dangerous
conditions relating to its design and manufacture, which it knew or should have known through
the exercise of ordinary care;
vi.

By failing to discover the defective, hazardous and unreasonably dangerous

conditions relating to the gun’s propensity to discharge accidentally,.e.g, if “vibrated” in some
unspecified fashion, while in the possession of SIG, and during which times employees,
servants or agents of SIG had an opportunity to inspect, service and work on the gun;
vii.

By negligently failing to place a warning about how mere “vibration” of the gun

could cause it to discharge without a voluntary trigger pull in an adequate manner, which could
be easily understood by a consumer, instead of relying on changing the bottom of page 25 of
the user manual for the gun after several incidents of accidental discharges;
viii.

Other negligent acts and omissions to be developed in the course of discovery.

63.

SIG knew, or should have known, that exposing users to the dangerous and

defective and hazardous conditions existing in the gun would or could give rise to serious bodily
injuries to such users, up to and including death.
64.

The gun’s defective condition was latent and Vadnais was not capable of

realizing the dangerous condition, and could not have discovered the dangerous
condition even upon performing a reasonable inspection of the same.
65.

SIG’s negligence as alleged in this Count directly and proximately caused the

February 7, 2018 accidental discharge and Vadnais’s injuries resulting from the accident.

16

 Case 1:18-cv-00540-LMB-IDD Document 1 Filed 05/04/18 Page 17 of 27 PageID# 17

66.

As a direct and proximate result of the negligence set forth in this Count, Vadnais

suffered severe physical injury, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of the capacity for the
enjoyment of life, physical deformity and handicap and embarrassment associated with the
same, loss of earnings and earning capacity, incurred medical, nursing, attendant care and life
care expenses for her care and treatment, and the insertion of a steel rod in her right leg for the
rest of her life. These injuries are either permanent or continuing in their nature and Vadnais will
suffer such losses and impairments in the future.

COUNT II
BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY
67.

Vadnais readopts and re-alleges all the preceding paragraphs of this pleading as

if fully set forth herein.
68.

At all relevant times, SIG was in the business of marketing, selling, and

distributing weapons, including the gun causing Vadnais’s injuries.
69.

SIG knew of the ordinary purposes for which the gun was intended and impliedly

warranted it to be of merchantable quality, safe, and fit for such purposes (which included
“vibrated” and handled while situated within and without a holster) and all other reasonably
foreseeable uses.
70.

At all relevant times, Vadnais used the gun in its intended manner and for its

intended purpose and reasonably relied on the skill, judgment and implied warranty of SIG.

17

 Case 1:18-cv-00540-LMB-IDD Document 1 Filed 05/04/18 Page 18 of 27 PageID# 18

SIG breached the above-referenced implied warranties as to the gun because, at the time it left
SIG’s possession, it was not of merchantable quality and was unreasonably dangerous and unfit
for the ordinary and reasonably foreseeable purposes for which it was intended and its
reasonably foreseeable misuses by virtue of:
i.

Failing to use due care in designing and manufacturing the P320’s internal

components, including its sear, and by omitting a mechanical disconnect switch, so as to
prevent accidental discharges;
ii.

Failing to issue a mandatory recall of the P320 as SIG had done in the past

with other defective products;
iii.

Failing to make reasonable tests and/or inspections to discover the defective,

hazardous and unreasonably dangerous conditions relating to the gun’s propensity to discharge
accidentally as described above;
iv.

Negligently failing to unambiguously warn purchasers and end users of the

gun, including Vadnais, of said defective, hazardous and unreasonably dangerous conditions
relating to its design and manufacture, which it knew or should have known through the exercise
of ordinary care;
v.

Failing to discover the defective, hazardous and unreasonably dangerous

conditions relating to the gun’s propensity to discharge accidentally while in the possession of
SIG, and during which times employees, servants or agents of SIG had an opportunity to
inspect, service and work on the gun;

18

 Case 1:18-cv-00540-LMB-IDD Document 1 Filed 05/04/18 Page 19 of 27 PageID# 19

vi.

Negligently failing to place a warning about the danger of mere “vibration” of the

gun in a conspicuous manner, such as on its case, which could be easily understood by a
consumer, instead of relying on changing the bottom of page 25 of the user manual for the gun
after several incidents of accidental discharges;
71.

Vadnais, as the end user of the gun, was a person who would foreseeably be

injured by breaching the implied warranty referenced in this Count and SIG’s breach of the
warranty of merchantability as alleged herein directly and proximately cause the accident on
February 7, 2018 and Vadnais’s claimed injuries.
72.

As a direct and proximate result of the breaches set forth in this Count, Vadnais

suffered severe physical injury, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of the capacity for the
enjoyment of life, physical deformity and handicap and embarrassment associated with the
same, loss of earnings and earning capacity, incurred medical, nursing, attendant care and life
care expenses for his care and treatment. These injuries are either permanent or continuing in
their nature and Vadnais will suffer such losses and impairments in the future.
COUNT III
BREACH OF WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
73.

Vadnais readopts and re-alleges all the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint

as if fully set forth herein.
74.

At all times material hereto, SIG was in the business of marketing, selling, and

19

 Case 1:18-cv-00540-LMB-IDD Document 1 Filed 05/04/18 Page 20 of 27 PageID# 20

distributing weapons, including the gun causing Vadnais’s injuries. Upon information and belief,
SIG knew or had reason to know the gun would be situated in holsters that would need to be
removed from a law enforcement end user’s service belt at the time they sold the gun, and that
the purchaser was in fact relying on SIG’s skill, judgment, and implied warranty of the gun’s
fitness for that particular purpose without firing.
75.

Accordingly, SIG impliedly warranted that the gun was suitable for the particular

purpose of being situated within a holster that would need to be removed from service belts
from time to time.
76.

At all relevant times, Vadnais used the gun in its intended manner and for its

intended purpose and reasonably relied on the skill, judgment and implied warranty of SIG
in using and handling the gun and its SIG-issued holster.
77.

SIG breached the above-referenced implied warranty as to the gun in that it was

unreasonably dangerous and unfit to be removed while in its holster at the time it left SIG’s
possession by virtue of:
i.

Failing to use due care in designing and manufacturing the P320’s internal

components, including its sear, and by omitting a mechanical disconnect switch, so as to
prevent accidental discharges;
ii.

Failing to issue a mandatory recall of the P320 as SIG had done in the past

with other defective products;
iii.

Failing to make reasonable tests and/or inspections to discover the defective,

20

 Case 1:18-cv-00540-LMB-IDD Document 1 Filed 05/04/18 Page 21 of 27 PageID# 21

hazardous and unreasonably dangerous conditions relating to the gun’s propensity to discharge
accidentally as described above;
iv.

Negligently failing to unambiguously and conspicuously warn purchasers and

end users of the gun, including Vadnais, of said defective, hazardous and unreasonably
dangerous conditions relating to its design and manufacture, which it knew or should have
known through the exercise of ordinary care;
v.

Failing to discover the defective, hazardous and unreasonably dangerous

conditions relating to the gun’s propensity to discharge accidentally while in the possession of
SIG, and during which times employees, servants or agents of SIG had an opportunity to
inspect, service and work on the gun;
vi.

Negligently failing to place a warning about the danger of mere “vibration” of the

gun in a conspicuous manner, such as on its case, which could be easily understood by a
consumer, instead of relying on changing the bottom of page 25 of the user manual for the gun
after several incidents of accidental discharges.
78.

As a direct and proximate result of the breaches set forth in this Count, Vadnais

suffered severe physical injury, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of the capacity for the
enjoyment of life, physical deformity and handicap and embarrassment associated with the
same, loss of earnings and earning capacity, incurred medical, nursing, attendant care and life
care expenses for his care and treatment. These injuries are either permanent or continuing in
their nature and Vadnais will suffer such losses and impairments in the future.

21

 Case 1:18-cv-00540-LMB-IDD Document 1 Filed 05/04/18 Page 22 of 27 PageID# 22

COUNT IV
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
79.

Vadnais readopts and re-alleges all the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint

as if fully set forth herein.
78.

By its actions, SIG knew, or should have known, that the design and/or

manufacturing defect in the gun rendered it capable of discharging without the trigger being
pulled. Yet is presented to the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Department including Vadnais, and
the general public, in marketing materials that numerous safeties would prevent the gun from
firing unless the trigger was pulled.
79.

SIG’s conduct created an unreasonable risk of causing the plaintiff emotional

distress;
80.

Vadnais’s emotional distress was foreseeable;

81.

The emotional distress was severe enough that it might result in illness or bodily

harm, and in fact did result in severe bodily harm; including severe damage to her right femur,
blood loss, and the scattering of shrapnel from the discharged round within her leg which will
remain in her leg for at least another year and possibly indefinitely if the fragments cannot be
removed safely surgically.
82.

SIG’s conduct was the direct and proximate cause of Vadnais’s distress.

83.

The trigger was not pulled by Vadnais, yet the weapon still fired and shot her in

the leg, breaking her femur in half and narrowly missing her femoral artery, which would have

22

 Case 1:18-cv-00540-LMB-IDD Document 1 Filed 05/04/18 Page 23 of 27 PageID# 23

been a mortal injury.
84.

As a direct and proximate result of the breaches set forth in this Count, Vadnais

suffered severe physical injury, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of the capacity for the
enjoyment of life, physical deformity and handicap and embarrassment associated with the
same, loss of earnings and earning capacity, incurred medical, nursing, attendant care and life
care expenses for his care and treatment. These injuries are either permanent or continuing in
their nature and Vadnais will suffer such losses and impairments in the future.
COUNT V
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
85.

Vadnais readopts and re-alleges all the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint

as if fully set forth herein.
86.

Upon information and belief, SIG had knowledge of the various defects

with the commercial version of the P320 gun more than a year before Vadnais was shot in
February 2018.
87.

Despite having such knowledge, it failed to issue a mandatory recall of the gun

despite the ability to do so, which would have prevented the severe injury to Vadnais.
88.

Had SIG acted responsibly and repaired the defects in the commercial

version of the P320 before February 2018, Vadnais never would have been shot. The
round discharged from her weapon easily could have taken her life.

23

 Case 1:18-cv-00540-LMB-IDD Document 1 Filed 05/04/18 Page 24 of 27 PageID# 24

89.

SIG knew, or should have known, that severe emotional distress was a

likely result of its outrageous and irresponsible conduct, which was designed to save in excess
of $100 million in repair costs, by implementing a “voluntary upgrade” of the gun instead of a
mandatory recall.
90.

SIG’s conduct in this matter was self-serving, deceptive, reckless, intolerable

and outrageous as described above, such as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and
be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.
91.

SIG’s conduct was the direct and proximate cause of Vadnais’s distress.

92

The emotional distress sustained by Vadnais was severe, and was accompanied

by severe and permanent physical injury.
93.

As a direct and proximate result of the breaches set forth in this Count, Vadnais

suffered severe physical injury, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of the capacity for the
enjoyment of life, physical deformity and handicap and embarrassment associated with the
same, loss of earnings and earning capacity, incurred medical, nursing, attendant care and life
care expenses for his care and treatment. These injuries are either permanent or continuing in
their nature and Vadnais will suffer such losses and impairments in the future.
COUNT VI
VIOLATION OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT​ ​Va. Code Ann. § 59.1-200(5)(6)
and (14)
94.

Vadnais readopts and re-alleges all the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint

24

 Case 1:18-cv-00540-LMB-IDD Document 1 Filed 05/04/18 Page 25 of 27 PageID# 25

as if fully set forth herein.
95.

By it actions, SIG has violated subsections (5), (6) and (14) of the Consumer

Protection Act.
96.

Specifically, subjection (​5) of the Act prohibits “[m]isrepresenting that goods or

services have certain quantities, characteristics, ingredients, uses, or benefits.
97.

Subsection (6) prohibits “[m]isrepresenting that goods or services are of a

particular standard, quality, grade, style, or model.
98.

Subsection (14) prohibits “[u]sing any other deception, fraud, false pretense,

false promise, or misrepresentation in connection with a consumer transaction.
99.

SIG has violated each of these provisions by expressly and simultaneously

representing:
(i)

that the P320 gun will not fire unless the trigger is pulled;

(ii)

that the gun may fire if “vibrated” without the trigger being pulled;

(iii)

that “[f]rom the trigger, to the striker and even the magazine, the P320

won’t fire unless you want it to”, while knowing that it has fired many times without voluntary
trigger pulls;
(v)

that the commercial version of the gun is safe in its original design and

manufacture, but may be made “better” by means of a “voluntary upgrade”, when it is in fact
not merely of lesser quality, but is in fact unsafe, and susceptible to accidental discharges
without voluntary trigger pulls, without several repairs being made to it;

25

 Case 1:18-cv-00540-LMB-IDD Document 1 Filed 05/04/18 Page 26 of 27 PageID# 26

(vi)

that the gun may fire if it is dropped with a chambered round; and

(vii)

that the gun is also, at the same time, “drop safe.”

101.

SIG contracted with the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Department ​clearly

and definitely intending to confer a benefit upon Vadnais, i.e., the provision of a duty
weapon.
102.

As a direct and proximate result of the statutory violations set forth in this

Count, Vadnais suffered severe physical injury, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of the
capacity for the enjoyment of life, physical deformity and handicap and embarrassment
associated with the same, loss of earnings and earning capacity, incurred medical, nursing,
attendant care and life care expenses for his care and treatment. These injuries are either
permanent or continuing in their nature and Vadnais will suffer such losses and impairments in
the future.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE​, as compensation for injuries suffered due to SIG’s negligence and
breaches of its implied and express warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular
purpose, deceptive marketing practices, and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional
distress and physical injury, Vadnais demands judgment in her favor and
against SIG in the amount of TEN MILLION and 00/100 DOLLARS ($10,000,000.00) together
with pre-judgment interest from February 7, 2018, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

26

 Case 1:18-cv-00540-LMB-IDD Document 1 Filed 05/04/18 Page 27 of 27 PageID# 27

A JURY TRIAL IS REQUESTED.
PLAINTIFF
MARCIE D. VADNAIS
By:
__/s/Jeffrey S. Bagnell​___________
Jeffrey S. Bagnell
Federal Bar No. CT18983
Jeffrey S. Bagnell, Esq., LLC
55 Greens Farms Road, #200-60
Westport, Connecticut 06880
(203) 984-8820
(203) 255-4454 (fax)
jeff@bagnell-law.com
Counsel for Plaintiff
(Pro Hac Vice Admission Pending)
By:

/s/ Corey R. Pollard
Corey R. Pollard
VSB No. 78931
Jenkins, Block, & Associates P.C.
1111 East Main St., Suite 803
Richmond, VA 23219
Tel: 804.788.4311
Email: corey_pollard@teamjba.com
Counsel for Plaintiff

27