Desrosiers v. Sig Sauer Inc
1:22-cv-11674
| D. Mass. | Jun 24, 2025Background
- Officer Jacques Desrosiers, a Cambridge Police Department officer, was injured when his Sig Sauer P320 duty pistol discharged in his waistband without him pulling the trigger.
- Desrosiers was not carrying the pistol in its holster (a violation of department policy) and claims he did not touch the trigger; surveillance footage captured the incident.
- Plaintiffs (Desrosiers and his wife) sued Sig Sauer for defective design, failure to warn, and other claims, submitting expert reports from James Tertin (firearms design) and William Vigilante (human factors/ergonomics).
- Sig Sauer moved to exclude the experts' testimonies under Rule 702 and sought summary judgment on several grounds, including design defect, causation, failure to warn, emotional distress, and punitive damages.
- The court denied most of Sig Sauer’s motions to exclude expert testimony and for summary judgment, but granted summary judgment on intentional infliction of emotional distress and punitive damages under common-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Tertin’s Design/Cause Testimony | Tertin's expert design and causation analysis is sound and relevant | Testimony is not based on sufficient facts; unreliable | Testimony admissible; reliable and relevant for jury consideration |
| Admissibility of Vigilante’s Testimony | Vigilante’s human factors expertise supports causation opinion | Not qualified in firearm design; methods unreliable | Causation testimony admissible; design opinions excluded as cumulative |
| Defective Design (Summary Judgment) | P320 was defectively designed—no trigger safety, feasible alternative existed | Absence of external safety is deliberate, not a defect | Sufficient evidence for a jury; summary judgment denied |
| Failure to Warn | Sig Sauer failed to warn CPD of P320 risks when selecting duty pistol | No proximate cause; not specifically warned Desrosiers | Jury could find failure to warn caused injury; summary judgment denied |
| Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress & Punitive Damages | Sought damages on these claims | Not supportable or legally authorized | Summary judgment for Sig Sauer on these claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Crowe v. Marchand, 506 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2007) (explains distinction between court's gatekeeping role and jury’s role regarding expert testimony)
- Evans v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., 990 N.E.2d 997 (Mass. 2013) (sets forth elements for defective design product liability under Massachusetts law)
- Wasylow v. Glock, Inc., 975 F. Supp. 370 (D. Mass. 1996) (addresses when omission of a safety feature can constitute a design defect)
- MacDonald v. Ortho Pharm. Corp., 475 N.E.2d 65 (Mass. 1985) (jury can determine adequacy of warnings without expert testimony in some cases)
- Pine v. Rust, 535 N.E.2d 1247 (Mass. 1989) (punitive damages not allowed absent statutory authorization)