Miami, Florida — The car manufacturer led by Elon Musk is seeking to overturn a recent jury award of $243 million in a wrongful death case tied to a fatal crash involving one of its vehicles. Tesla argues that the outcome was skewed by the inclusion of misleading references to Musk during the trial.
The case involved the tragic death of Naibel Benavides, a 22-year-old student who was killed when she was ejected from a Tesla that was reportedly operating in Autopilot mode. While the driver of the vehicle was deemed primarily responsible due to distracted driving, the jury also found Tesla liable due to alleged deficiencies in its technology.
Legal experts are closely monitoring the case as it could have far-reaching implications for the auto industry, particularly for companies developing autonomous driving features. There are concerns that future juries may hold manufacturers partly accountable for driver actions, potentially stifling innovation in safety technologies.
In its court filing, Tesla contends that the plaintiffs’ attorneys misled jurors by presenting what the company deems irrelevant evidence. This evidence suggested that Tesla had concealed video data which, after being revealed, helped illustrate events leading up to the crash. Tesla acknowledged a prior oversight in delivering some evidence but refuted any intent to withhold it.
Musk’s decision to proceed to trial comes at a critical juncture for Tesla, as the company aims to bolster public confidence in its self-driving technology while planning to introduce driverless taxi services. Historically, many lawsuits against Tesla have been resolved before reaching trial.
Plaintiff attorneys offered a settlement of $60 million, which Tesla declined, leading to the jury’s ruling that significantly favored the victims’ families, a decision that Tesla is now contesting. The jury found considerable fault with Tesla’s technology, even as the driver admitted to being distracted by his cellphone at the time of the accident.
The plaintiffs’ legal team argued that Tesla’s use of the term “Autopilot” is misleading, suggesting that it gives drivers a false sense of security. They noted that other automakers use less ambiguous terminology, such as “driver assist,” to ensure that drivers remain attentive and aware.
Concerns about Tesla’s marketing and terminology have been echoed by regulators in Europe, who question whether the company’s language misrepresents the capabilities of its driver assistance software. While Musk has expressed optimism about receiving regulatory approval for updates to its Autopilot system, the timeline for such approvals remains uncertain.
The advanced driver assistance system, referred to by Musk as Full-Self Driving, is under scrutiny in the U.S. as well. California’s Department of Motor Vehicles is currently involved in proceedings that could impact Tesla’s license to sell cars, partly due to accusations of misleading naming conventions.
In testimony, George McGee, the driver involved in the Florida crash, stated that he relied too heavily on the vehicle’s technology, believing it would automatically respond to hazards. The lead defense attorney argued that Tesla provides clear warnings about the necessity for drivers to maintain full control while using its systems.
Following the unfavorable jury verdict, Tesla’s stock price saw a decline of nearly 3.5%, compounded by previous reports indicating a slowdown in sales in Europe, where the company faces backlash connected to Musk’s political statements.
This article was automatically written by OpenAI 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.