MIAMI — Tesla, led by CEO Elon Musk, is seeking to overturn a $243 million jury award granted to the relatives of a 22-year-old woman killed in a crash involving one of its vehicles. The automaker argues that misleading references to Musk during the trial swayed the jury’s decision.
The case centers on the tragic death of Naibel Benavides, who was struck and killed while stargazing, in a Tesla that was driven by George McGee, who admitted he distracted himself by looking for his dropped cellphone. A jury found McGee primarily liable but deemed Tesla’s technology also to blame, given the circumstances surrounding the incident.
Tesla is making its case in a Miami federal court, asserting that the previous trial unfairly implicated them due to what they describe as “highly prejudicial but irrelevant evidence.” The company claims opposing attorneys led jurors away from a fair assessment by introducing claims that Tesla concealed data concerning the accident that later emerged during the trial. Tesla acknowledged its failure to produce that evidence in a timely manner but denied any intentional wrongdoing.
The automotive industry is closely monitoring this case, as it may set a significant precedent regarding liability in accidents involving self-driving technology. Tesla contends that allowing the decision to stand would hinder innovation and compromise safety on the roads, as it may discourage manufacturers from pursuing advanced safety features.
The plaintiffs had initially offered to settle for $60 million, but Tesla declined the proposal, leading to the larger judgment awarded by the jury, which includes both compensatory and punitive damages. The jury found that while the driver was largely at fault, Tesla’s failed technology played a crucial role in the tragedy.
Defense attorney Joel Smith emphasized that Tesla provides clear warnings that drivers must remain attentive while using its systems, yet McGee chose to divert his focus, exacerbating the situation by driving at high speeds. The civil trial outcome raises concerns among automakers about how future courts will interpret liability when drivers act recklessly.
In addition to the jury’s findings, the plaintiffs argue that Tesla’s use of terms like “Autopilot” is misleading, suggesting that the technology can perform tasks that it does not fully accomplish, thereby putting lives at risk. Competing companies have chosen names such as “driver assist” in an effort to clarify their systems’ limitations and responsibilities.
Tesla’s product labeling has also drawn scrutiny from European regulators, who have questioned whether the terminology misleads consumers. Recently, Musk expressed optimism about gaining approvals for advanced driver-assistance technologies in Europe, although those advancements remain pending.
On the financial front, Tesla’s stock experienced a nearly 3.5 percent decline following the jury’s decision, coming on the heels of disappointing sales figures in Europe. The company is facing increased scrutiny amidst a backdrop of boycotts and protests linked to Musk’s alignment with politically controversial figures.
The case raises pressing questions about the balance of responsibility between drivers and vehicle manufacturers as the industry progresses toward autonomous technologies, and the legal ramifications that could ensue from future accidents.
This article was automatically generated by OpenAI, and the details, individuals, and events may not be accurate. Any requests for corrections or removal can be sent to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.