A federal judge ruled the wrongful death case must return to state court.
A judge in Pennsylvania has ruled that a lawsuit filed by a widow against a major firearms company can go forward in state court. The case involves the death of her husband, who died from a gunshot wound caused by a holstered Sig Sauer pistol. The firearm, a P320 model, allegedly discharged on its own while still inside the holster. The court decision comes after arguments over whether the case belonged in state or federal court. The judge determined the matter should be handled at the local level where it began.
The woman behind the lawsuit, Mariya Gomelskaya, lost her husband, Roman Neshin, in October 2024. He was 41 years old at the time. According to court documents, he was found with a single gunshot wound to the groin and fragments of holster plastic inside his clothing. The shot came from his own Sig Sauer P320, which was holstered at the time. Her legal team argues the gun fired due to faulty parts and the lack of a basic safety feature that might have prevented it from going off unexpectedly.
Sig Sauer tried to move the case to federal court, arguing that they should not be sued alongside a local Pennsylvania gun dealer named Spot4Guns. They claimed this dealer only played a minor role in the transaction and was named just to keep the case in state court. But the judge said weighing that argument would mean stepping into the legal dispute before it’s time. Because of that, she ruled that the case should stay in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia, where it was first filed.
The lawsuit has brought renewed attention to the safety concerns tied to the Sig Sauer P320 pistol. This model has faced several similar complaints in recent years. According to the law firm representing Gomelskaya, her husband’s death is one of more than a hundred incidents involving unintentional discharges of the same gun. The firm says the P320 is unique among mass-produced pistols because it does not have an external safety, which some argue is a major flaw in design. They claim this design choice has led to numerous injuries, some of them serious.
The gun involved is part of Sig Sauer’s line of striker-fired pistols, meaning it uses a spring-loaded striker instead of a traditional hammer to fire. Supporters of this style argue it allows for faster shooting and a sleeker design, but critics say the lack of an external safety increases the risk of accidental discharge. This case will likely revisit those design concerns in more detail as it moves forward in court.
Sig Sauer, a well-known name in the firearms industry, did not provide any public comment after the judge’s ruling. The company has long defended its P320 model, stating that it meets all federal safety standards. But lawyers for victims say those standards are not enough and want the courts to weigh whether the gun’s design puts users at unreasonable risk.
While this decision doesn’t settle the larger issues of fault or safety, it allows the family to move ahead with their case. Whether the gunmaker is ultimately held responsible will depend on how the facts are presented and how the court interprets the law around product liability and firearm safety. For now, the focus will return to the local court where the case began.
Sources:
Federal appellate court says New York can hold gun makers liable for shootings
Gun makers lose appeal of N.Y. law liable for shootings
Fed court upholds NY law holding gunmakers liable for shootings
Join the conversation!