MIAMI — Tesla is challenging a significant legal ruling following a federal court jury’s decision to award $243 million to the family of a victim in a deadly crash involving one of its vehicles equipped with the Autopilot system. The fatal incident occurred when a Tesla, driven by a 22-year-old man distracted by his cellphone, struck and killed Naibel Benavides as she was stargazing in Florida.
In a filing submitted in Miami, Tesla’s legal team contends that the jury was misled during the trial due to improper references to company CEO Elon Musk. The jury had primarily attributed blame to the driver for his reckless actions but also found Tesla liable due to alleged flaws in its Autopilot technology.
Legal analysts have indicated that the outcome of this case could have implications for numerous automakers as they develop autonomous driving features. There are concerns that such verdicts may expose manufacturers to significant legal repercussions, even when drivers exhibit negligent behavior.
Tesla has argued that affirming the jury’s verdict could stifle innovation in the industry and potentially discourage manufacturers from advancing safety technologies. The company maintained that introducing new features to the market should not be met with punitive measures when issues arise from user error.
The company also claims that the opposing legal team introduced irrelevant evidence that swayed the jury. This evidence purportedly included claims that Tesla withheld critical data relating to the crash. Tesla admitted to a mistake for not presenting the data earlier but stated there was no intent to deceive.
Musk’s decision to let the case proceed to trial comes during a vital period for Tesla, as it aims to reassure consumers about its self-driving technology. The company has plans to deploy fully autonomous vehicles, but in this case, a jury held that its technology contributed significantly to the accident despite the driver’s admission of liability.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys revealed that they had proposed a $60 million settlement offer to Tesla before the case went to trial, a figure the company rejected. Ultimately, the verdict included both compensatory and punitive damages for Benavides’ family and her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo.
Tesla is now asking the court for a new trial or for the damages to be overturned or significantly reduced. The jury’s finding of liability hinged partly on the company’s decision to use marketing terminology that implies a higher degree of automation than currently exists. Critics argue this could mislead consumers regarding the capabilities of the Autopilot system.
European regulators have raised concerns about Tesla’s marketing language, questioning whether it misrepresents the technology’s function. Additionally, U.S. scrutiny continues as California officials seek to revoke Tesla’s license to sell vehicles, citing misleading promotional claims related to its driver assistance features.
During the trial, testimony revealed tensions between driver expectations and the actual performance of Autopilot. The driver involved, George McGee, admitted to over-relying on the technology, believing it would warn him of hazards.
In the stock market, Tesla’s shares plummeted nearly 3.5% following the verdict, adding to the company’s challenges in attracting buyers, especially in Europe, where there have been ongoing protests against Musk’s political affiliations and business practices.
This report was automatically generated by Open AI. The people, facts, circumstances, and story may be inaccurate, and any article can be requested for removal, retraction, or correction by writing an email to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.