Plaintiff Ashley Catatao, an officer with the Somerville Police Department, was injured when her Sig Sauer P320 duty pistol fired in its holster without her pulling its trigger. She sued the gun’s manufacturer, Defendant Sig Sauer, Inc., alleging it designed the P320 defectively and the defect caused her injuries. Catatao submitted a report from William Vigilante, who is an expert on ergonomics and human factors. Sig Sauer filed a motion to exclude Vigilante’s testimony pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
Some pistols come equipped with safety mechanisms that ensure they do not fire unintentionally. A thumb safety is a switch on the side of the pistol. Sig Sauer offered P320s with or without a thumb safety. The Somerville PD chose the P320 without a thumb safety as its duty pistol. Sig Sauer did not sell the P320 with a trigger safety.
Human Factors Engineering Expert Witness
William Vigilante has doctorate and master’s degrees in “Ergonomics (Human Factors) Psychology” as well as a bachelor’s degree in “Psychology (Cognitive track).” He has worked for over twenty-five years “on human-machine interaction, control-display design, product design, hazard identification and mitigation, risk perception, situational awareness, perception-reaction time, and the design and testing of warning systems.” He previously worked as a “Human Factors Engineer” at IBM Corporation, where he led teams in designing safe and user-friendly consumer and commercial products. Vigilante has authored scientific studies, presented work at “multiple professional conferences,” and conducted peer reviews in the field of human factors research.
Discussion by the Court
Vigilante’s Tests
Vigilante conducted tests on a model P320 and Glock 19. Vigilante placed each pistol into a Safariland Level III non-light-mounted holster, “inserted a probe in the gap” between the holster and the pistol, and attempted to actuate the pistol’s trigger.
He did not mention the tests in his expert report. However, Catatao disclosed Vigilante’s tests shortly prior to Vigilante’s deposition in December 2023, more than two months after the Court’s October 6, 2023, disclosure deadline. The Court did not preclude them because they caused no prejudice to Sig Sauer. At the deposition, Sig Sauer asked Vigilante questions about his tests’ methodology, results, and conclusions.
Rule 702
Sig Sauer questioned Vigilante’s qualifications to testify as an expert on the P320’s design and on causation. Sig Sauer argued that Vigilante did not have any expertise in gun design. Plaintiff did not provide information about his professional experiences applying human factors and ergonomics research to firearms. Vigilante has experience shooting for sport and teaching others to use guns safely. But at most, those experiences indicate expertise in safe gun use, not in safe gun design. The Court held that Vigilante is not qualified to testify that Sig Sauer designed the P320 defectively.
However, Vigilante conducted experiments to test whether a tabbed trigger could have prevented Catatao’s P320 from discharging. The Court held that his conclusion — that if a foreign object caused Catatao’s P320’s trigger to depress, “it is more likely than not that a tabbed trigger safety would have prevented this incident” — is reasonably related to his experiments, research, and expertise.
Sig Sauer raised a number of concerns regarding the methodology of Vigilante’s tests. For example, Sig Sauer claimed Vigilante did not use Catatao’s holster model during his tests. But these are matters “affecting the weight and credibility of the testimony,” not its admissibility.
Held
The Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert William Vigilante.
Key Takeaway:
Vigilante was not qualified to testify that Sig Sauer designed the P320 defectively becuase his experiences indicate expertise in safe gun use, not in safe gun design.
However, Vigilante conducted experiments to test whether a tabbed trigger could have prevented Catatao’s P320 from discharging and his conclusions were reasonably related to his experiments, research, and expertise.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Catatao V. Sig Sauer Inc |
| Docket Number: | 1:22cv10620 |
| Court: | United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| Order Date: | July 9, 2024 |
Leave a Reply