Outside of the thread I posted, the SEPTA suit was the one most recently swimming around in my brain.
The system Sig uses provides no redundancies for human failure in an environment (duty use) where human failure is an accepted and expected part of the market. That's where, I think, they might be hosed in the future.
Let's use a hypothetical. Forget, for a moment, that vehicles are required by law to have certain safety features (violation of a safety law meant to protect from a specific kind of harm establishes per se negligence in tort).
Imagine you sell the PERFECT patrol car... except it doesn't have a seat belt or airbags. Everyone else in the marketplace does, but you omit those features. You can even have an arguable reason (e.g. quicker egress from a patrol car in cases of vehicular assault/pursuits that culminate in a collision/vehicle fires).
Now, neither of those features are guaranteed to save your life in a head on collision. A perfect human driver, surrounded by perfect human drivers, in perfect conditions would never need those features.
However, you sell your car to cops in the real world, and lo and behold, some dude editing a report on his MDT while driving, or eating a burrito, wrecks his car. He gets mildly injured. Another guy gets injured in a similar manner.
Human error is involved in both cases. Arguably, those standard-but-not-mandated-in-this-universe features would have prevented the injuries.
Are you liable in a products liability tort action for omitting industry standard redundancies/safety features, despite human error causing the injuries?
That's the issue Sig is facing.
(Seriously, I'm asking. I could barely stay awake in torts and products liability wasn't on the bar exam.)