Miami — Tesla is seeking to overturn a $243 million jury verdict awarded to the family of a 22-year-old college student who died in a crash involving a Tesla vehicle equipped with Autopilot features. The company, led by Elon Musk, filed a motion in federal court arguing that the lawyers for the victims misled the jury by referencing Musk during the trial.
The tragic incident occurred when the victim, Naibel Benavides, was struck by a speeding Tesla driven by George McGee, who admitted he was distracted by his cellphone at the time of the accident. Despite the jury’s finding that McGee bore most of the blame, it also determined that faulty technology was a contributing factor, implicating Tesla in the incident.
This case has garnered significant attention as automakers race to develop fully autonomous driving systems amid increasing scrutiny over technology failures. Tesla warned that allowing the verdict to stand could deter innovation and expose manufacturers to excessive liability risks with future accidents, even when drivers are at fault.
In its filing, Tesla contended that opposing counsel unfairly presented evidence not previously disclosed, which suggested the company had hidden crucial video and data following the crash. Tesla acknowledged some responsibility for not producing this evidence earlier but asserted that it was not an intentional oversight.
Musk, facing heightened scrutiny over Tesla’s self-driving technology, faces a critical challenge in rebuilding consumer trust. The company is aiming to deploy driverless robotaxi services across the United States, following improvements made since the 2019 crash.
Historical context reveals that many lawsuits involving Tesla have either been settled or dismissed prior to reaching trial. The lawyers for the plaintiffs had previously proposed a settlement of $60 million, which Tesla declined. Ultimately, the jury awarded substantial compensatory and punitive damages to the Benavides family.
The lawsuit has raised broader concerns about Tesla’s marketing practices, particularly the use of Autopilot terminology, which the plaintiff’s lawyers argued could mislead consumers regarding the technology’s limitations. Unlike Tesla, other automakers have opted for phrases like “driver assist” to caution consumers about the system’s capabilities.
European regulators are also examining Tesla’s terminology and its potential to mislead drivers, while Musk previously indicated that advancements to Autopilot would receive approval from regulators. However, the approval process has lingered longer than anticipated.
Testimonies in the case revealed that the driver, George McGee, believed Tesla’s technology would prevent accidents by offering warnings and automatically applying brakes. However, defense attorneys pointed out that Tesla advises drivers to remain attentive and in control, which McGee failed to do while searching for his phone.
Following the court proceedings, Tesla’s stock saw a significant decline, dropping nearly 3.5% amid news that European consumers are increasingly hesitant to purchase Tesla vehicles. This shift has been exacerbated by public protests and boycotts spurred by Musk’s political associations.
This ongoing legal battle reflects the complex interplay between innovation in automotive technology and the responsibilities that come with it, setting a potentially transformative precedent for the future of self-driving vehicles.
The article was automatically written by Open AI, and the people, facts, circumstances, and story may be inaccurate. Any article can be requested to be removed, retracted, or corrected by writing an email to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.