New Hampshire's new law protecting gunmakers faces first test in court over Sig Sauer lawsuit
The 2-month-old law was created by the Republican-led Legislature in response to mounting lawsuits faced by the Newington-based manufacturer over its popular P320 pistol. The lawsuits say that the gun can go off without the trigger being pulled, an allegation Sig Sauer denies.
Sig Sauer, which employs over 2,000 people in New Hampshire, said the gun is safe and the problem is user error.
Several large, multi-plaintiff cases filed since 2022 in New Hampshire's federal court representing nearly 80 people accuse Sig Sauer of defective product design, marketing, and negligence, in addition to lawsuits filed in other states. Many of the plaintiffs are current and former law enforcement officers who say they were wounded by the gun.
They say the P320 design requires an external mechanical safety, a feature that is optional. The most recent New Hampshire case, representing 22 plaintiffs in 16 states, was filed in March. It's the focus of Monday's hearing.
The new law on product liability claims against Sig Sauer and other gun manufacturers covers the 'absence or presence' of the external safety and several other optional features. Claims can still be filed over manufacturing defects.
Attorneys for Sig Sauer argue it should apply to the March case, even though the law didn't exist at the time.
'New Hampshire has a clearly articulated position against such claims being cognizable in this state,' they argue in court documents for breaking up the cases and transferring them to court districts where the plaintiffs live.
Lawyers from a Philadelphia-based firm representing the plaintiffs, disagree, saying the law 'has zero implication' on the case and only applies to future lawsuits.
New Hampshire was the chosen location because federal rules allow lawsuits against a company in its home state, the plaintiff's attorneys say. Those lawsuits have been assigned to one federal judge in Concord. Sig Sauer is trying to decentralize the case, they say.
Sig Sauer has prevailed in some cases. It has appealed two recent multimillion-dollar verdicts against it, in Pennsylvania and Georgia. A judge recently allowed the Pennsylvania verdict to stand, but vacated $10 million in punitive damages awarded to the plaintiff.
Download the FREE Boston 25 News app for breaking news alerts.
Follow Boston 25 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch Boston 25 News NOW
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
17 minutes ago
- Fox News
Federal judge partially blocks law banning adults from helping minors get out-of-state abortions
A federal judge has blocked a portion of a Tennessee law that made it a crime for adults to help minors obtain out-of-state abortions without parental consent. Known for prohibiting "abortion trafficking of a minor," the law, enacted in 2024 by Republican Gov. Bill Lee, with support from the GOP-controlled legislature, criminalizes certain behavior toward pregnant, unemancipated minors by adults who are not their parents or legal guardians who help them receive abortions – even if the abortion is legal in another state. U.S. Circuit Judge Julia Gibbons, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, took issue with the law's "recruitment provision," which criminalizes giving information to minors about how to receive an abortion out of state or helping minors make travel plans. In a summary judgment Friday, Gibbons agreed the provision violates the First Amendment because it "prohibits speech encouraging lawful abortion while allowing speech discouraging lawful abortion." "That is impermissible viewpoint discrimination, which the First Amendment rarely tolerates – and does not tolerate here," Gibbons, who sits on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, wrote. Gibbons permanently blocked enforcement of the provision banning encouraging a minor to seek a legal out-of-state abortion. "The recruitment provision targets speech because of its message – that abortion is safe, common and normal – and available in certain states – and is presumptively unconstitutional," the judge added. Gibbons noted that she was brought in to hear this lower court case after four judges from the Middle District of Tennessee recused themselves. If Tennessee appeals the decision, the case will advance to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The Tennessee attorney general has already appealed a November decision by U.S. District Judge Aleta Trauger that temporarily blocked the recruitment provision. That appeal remains pending in the Sixth Circuit Court. The case was brought by Democratic state Rep. Aftyn Behn, who is a licensed social worker, and Rachel Welty, a Nashville attorney and pro-abortion advocate. "Because plaintiffs wish to speak about legal abortions and seek to help minors obtain legal, out-of-state abortions, their intended speech is protected under the First Amendment," Gibbons wrote. In response to the decision, Welty and Behn's lead counsel, Daniel A. Horwitz, said Gibbons' "thoughtful and well-reasoned opinion protects the right of all Tennesseans to share truthful information about abortion without fear that crusading prosecutors will try to punish them criminally for doing so." "It also affirms that the government has no authority to enact overbroad laws that criminalize pure speech based on the government's disagreement with a speaker's point of view," he added in a statement. "This is a major victory for Ms. Welty, Representative Behn, and all Tennesseans who believe that the government has no right to prosecute citizens for sharing truthful information." In the final decision, Gibbons, however, rejected the plaintiffs' claims that the law is too vague to be constitutional under the Due Process Clause. The judge sided with the state on that matter, saying the law is sufficiently specific in what behavior is forbidden. Gibbons did not block portions of the law criminalizing physically transporting minors across state lines to receive an abortion or harboring a minor for the purpose of helping them receive an abortion. "The court grants summary judgment for the plaintiffs on their free speech claims and enjoins enforcement of the recruiting prong of the statute," Gibbons wrote. "The statute is not, however, void for vagueness. The court therefore grants summary judgment for defendants on plaintiff's vagueness claim." The law does not apply to the minor's parent or legal guardian, licensed media providers acting in emergency situations, or law enforcement acting within official duties. Violations constitute a Class A Misdemeanor punishable by up to 11 months and 29 days in jail or a fine of up to $2,500. The statute provides that violators "may be held liable in a civil action for the wrongful death of an unborn child who was aborted." After the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Tennessee enforced a "trigger law," effectively banning abortions in most cases, with limited exceptions.
The Hill
19 minutes ago
- The Hill
Murkowski: Trump administration funding freeze could result in ‘closing schools'
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) fears the Trump administration's multi-billion dollar education funding freeze could cause schools in her state to close as districts struggle to keep employees without the money. The administration originally froze a total of $6 billion in funding to schools, affecting after-school and summer programs, along with classes for adult and English learners. Last week, the president released around $1 billion that was aimed at after-school programs, but $5 billion is still held up. 'Many of our school districts have already made really hard decisions about closing schools,' Murkowski told ABC News. 'Both in Fairbanks and Anchorage, we've seen layoffs,' she continued. 'If your literacy skills are weak, if you're working on your English skills, I mean, these are all things that are keeping people out of the workforce at a time when we're trying to get people into it,' Murkowski added. 'So I am very worried.' She was one of nine Republicans to sign a letter to the Office of Management and Budget last week demanding the funding be released and rejecting the administration's claim that the money is going towards 'woke' programs. The letter prompted the office to release the around $1 billion in funding for after-school and summer programming, prompting a sigh of relief for parents. But the rest of the money is still in limbo with no timeline on when it will be given to schools. 'I'd like to see some of the other programs released, but, you know, we haven't heard one way or the other,' Sen. Shelley Moore Capito ( who led the Republican letter, told ABC. While Murkowski is hesitant to say the money is cut, she stresses the funding needs to be released before the school year begins. 'I don't want to call it cuts yet, because my hope is that they're just unpaused and that they are going to materialize,' Murkowski told ABC News.
San Francisco Chronicle
19 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
UN's top court says failing to protect planet from climate change could violate international law
THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — The United Nations's top court announced Wednesday that if countries fail to take measures to protect the planet from climate change, they could be in violation of international law. The International Court of Justice was delivering an advisory opinion in a landmark case about nations' obligations to tackle climate change and the consequences they may face if they don't, calling it an 'urgent and existential' threat to humanity. 'Failure of a state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system ... may constitute an internationally wrongful act,' court President Yuji Iwasawa said during the hearing. The non-binding opinion, which runs to over 500 pages, is seen as a potential turning point in international climate law. The court also said a 'clean, healthy and sustainable environment' is a human right. Enshrining a sustainable environment as a human right paves the way for other legal actions, including states returning to the ICJ to hold each other to account as well as domestic lawsuits, along with legal instruments like investment agreements. The case is led by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu and backed by more than 130 countries. All U.N. member states including major greenhouse gas emitters like the United States and China are parties to the court. Outside the court, climate activists gathered with a banner that read: 'Courts have spoken. The law is clear. States must ACT NOW.' The courtroom, known as the Great Hall of Justice, was packed. After years of lobbying by vulnerable island nations who fear they could disappear under rising sea waters, the U.N. General Assembly asked the ICJ in 2023 for an advisory opinion, an important basis for international obligations. A panel of 15 judges was tasked with answering two questions: What are countries obliged to do under international law to protect the climate and environment from human-caused greenhouse gas emissions? Second, what are the legal consequences for governments when their acts, or lack of action, have significantly harmed the climate and environment? 'The stakes could not be higher. The survival of my people and so many others is on the line,' Arnold Kiel Loughman, attorney general of the island nation of Vanuatu, told the court during a week of hearings in December. In the decade up to 2023, sea levels rose by a global average of around 4.3 centimeters (1.7 inches), with parts of the Pacific rising higher still. The world has also warmed 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.3 Fahrenheit) since preindustrial times because of the burning of fossil fuels. Vanuatu is one of a group of small states pushing for international legal intervention in the climate crisis, but it affects many more island nations in the South Pacific. 'The agreements being made at an international level between states are not moving fast enough,' Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu's minister for climate change, told The Associated Press. Activists could bring lawsuits against their own countries for failing to comply with the decision. 'What makes this case so important is that it addresses the past, present, and future of climate action. It's not just about future targets -- it also tackles historical responsibility, because we cannot solve the climate crisis without confronting its roots,' Joie Chowdhury, a senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, told AP. The United States and Russia, both of whom are major petroleum-producing states, are staunchly opposed to the court mandating emissions reductions. But those who cling to fossil fuels could go broke doing it, the U.N. secretary-general told The Associated Press in an exclusive interview this week. Simply having the court issue an opinion is the latest in a series of legal victories for the small island nations. Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights found that countries have a legal duty not only to avoid environmental harm but also to protect and restore ecosystems. Last year, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that countries must better protect their people from the consequences of climate change. In 2019, the Netherlands' Supreme court handed down the first major legal win for climate activists when judges ruled that protection from the potentially devastating effects of climate change was a human right and that the government has a duty to protect its citizens. ___
