A Kentucky man who claims his holstered pistol fired and struck him can once again sue the gunmaker who produced the weapon, a federal appeals court has ruled.

On Monday, a divided panel for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court erred when it dismissed plaintiff Timothy Davis’s product liability claims against Sig Sauer. Specifically, the panel found that the lower court’s decision to disallow Davis’s use of expert witnesses was too sweeping and thus, improperly undermined his ability to proceed with a case against the firearm’s lack of specific external safety mechanisms.

“Although the district court correctly excluded Davis’s experts from testifying about what exactly caused Davis’s P320 to fire inadvertently, the experts’ opinions were otherwise admissible to prove other elements of Davis’s claims—specifically that the P320 is defectively designed and that reasonable alternative designs exist,” Judge Karen Nelson Moore wrote for the majority in Davis v. Sig Sauer.

The ruling brings bad news and further legal scrutiny over one of the country’s most prominent gun manufacturers and its popular P320 handgun. It will allow yet another set of claims against the pistol alleging that it is susceptible to firing without an intentional trigger pull to be presented to a jury with potentially millions of dollars at stake.

Davis’s case arose after he was shot in the leg when his P320 accidentally fired as he was getting out of his truck in January 2021. He testified that the firearm was fully holstered during the incident and that he never intentionally pulled the trigger. However, law enforcement responding to the scene at the time gave a conflicting report. They alleged Davis admitted to officers that he was actively “attempting to holster his weapon on his side when the gun accidentally discharged,” according to the opinion.

Nevertheless, Davis sued Sig Sauer the following year, arguing that his P320 model’s lack of any external safety mechanisms, such as a manual thumb or grip safety, constituted a product defect that led to the discharge. His legal team hired two expert witnesses, a gunsmith and a “risk-analysis expert,” who offered testimony claiming that the P320’s lack of manual safety devices increased the likelihood of Davis’s accident. The district court ultimately ruled to exclude their testimony on the grounds that it was “speculati[ve]” and could not actually address what caused Davis’s trigger to engage. It also tossed his suit.

On appeal, Judge Moore determined that latter step was one too far.

“Although we agree with the district court that the experts do not have a factual basis on which to opine on causation of the incident, their testimonies are admissible for other purposes,” Moore, a Bill Clinton appointee, wrote. “Both experts provide reliable and helpful testimony in explaining the intricacies of the P320 and reasonable alternative designs that Sig Sauer could have implemented to make the P320 less susceptible to inadvertent actuation.”

Judge Amul Thapar, a Donald Trump appointee, dissented from his colleagues in the majority. He argued that Davis’s failure to provide any expert testimony directly addressing the specific cause of the negligent discharge should sink his claim.

“In a complex product defect case, Kentucky requires a plaintiff to present expert testimony showing both that there’s a defect and the defect caused his injury,” he wrote. “But Davis didn’t present expert testimony on causation. Thus, his product defect claim should fail.”

He argued that the factual record in the case, including Davis’s willing choice in purchasing and handling the firearm, should caution against holding Sig responsible.

“Davis bought and carried a Sig Sauer P320 X-Carry without a manual safety,” he wrote. “Davis was free to make that reasonable choice. But it should defeat his claim that the gun suffered from a design defect that caused him injury.”

“All told, a mass of evidence suggests the gun didn’t fire on its own,” Thapar added. “Instead, it suggests that Davis fumbled with his gun and pulled the trigger.”

Thapar also cautioned his colleagues against drawing sweeping conclusions about the P320’s lack of a manual safety. He noted that Sig makes versions of the pistol with an external safety as an option and that it is quite common for modern firearms to not have one.

“Sig Sauer’s decision to make a gun without a manual safety may strike many individuals who aren’t familiar with firearms as odd. But to citizens who exercise their Second Amendment right to protect themselves and their families by carrying a firearm, it makes good sense,” he wrote. “It allows them to draw, aim, and fire at a moment’s notice, warding off danger and saving themselves and their loved ones from harm. That’s a feature, not a bug. And so long as the owner follows the golden rule of gun safety—don’t place your finger inside the trigger guard until you’re ready to fire—he can feel confident carrying such a firearm, even with a round in the chamber.”

Despite Thapar’s dissent, the ruling will allow the case to return to the Kentucky District Court to be heard before a jury trial, where Sig Sauer has had tough luck in recent months.

Last November, a Philadelphia jury awarded $11 million to a plaintiff making similar claims against Sig related to a P320 unintentionally firing. That followed a first-of-its-kind verdict last June in which a Georgia jury awarded a plaintiff $2.3 million for another shooting incident involving a holstered P320.

Sig Sauer did not respond to a request for comment on Monday’s decision. The company has repeatedly stood by the safety and design of its flagship pistol.

“The design of the SIG SAUER P320 model pistol is innovative and safe, with numerous related patents, including several relating to safety mechanisms,” the company wrote in a statement issued last November. “It is among the most tested, proven, and successful handguns in recent history, with versions being selected as the official sidearm of the U.S., Canadian, Australian, and Danish militaries, among many other military and law enforcement organizations worldwide.”

The company is currently appealing both previous jury verdicts.