Tesla has filed a motion to overturn a federal jury’s $243 million verdict holding the automaker partly responsible for a fatal 2019 crash involving its Autopilot system in Florida.
The company argues that the damages awarded were excessive and insists the driver bore full responsibility for the collision that killed 22-year-old Naibel Benavides.
The crash occurred in April 2019 when driver George McGee, operating a Tesla Model S with Autopilot engaged, struck Benavides and her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo, who was seriously injured.
McGee admitted to looking away from the road after dropping his phone, expecting the vehicle’s autonomous systems to react appropriately.
What triggered the $243 million Autopilot verdict against Tesla?
The Miami federal jury awarded a total of $329 million in damages, assigning Tesla 33% liability and the driver 67%. This resulted in a $242.5 million payout tied to Tesla’s share.
Legal teams uncovered that Tesla withheld critical crash data, including video and sensor telemetry, which delayed or misled investigation efforts.
Did you know?
Tesla's first vehicle was the Roadster, which debuted in 2008. It was the first production electric car to use lithium-ion battery cells.
How is Tesla challenging the damages in court?
Tesla’s attorneys argue that the Model S had no design defects and that the driver’s recklessness caused the crash. They seek to reduce compensatory damages from $129 million to $69 million and to eliminate or cap punitive damages per Florida law.
The company cautions that upholding such verdicts could deter innovation and adversely affect road safety by discouraging manufacturers from advancing safety technology.
ALSO READ | What’s behind Volkswagen’s renewed five-year cloud partnership with AWS?
What role did withheld data play in the trial?
Forensic experts recovered previously concealed "collision snapshot" data from Tesla’s servers, proving that Autopilot detected the stop sign, red light, parked vehicle, and pedestrians but failed to respond appropriately.
This evidence contradicted Tesla’s earlier claims that such data either did not exist or had been corrupted, influencing jury perspectives on the system’s reliability.
What broader implications does this case have for Autopilot safety?
The verdict marks a significant legal milestone and may embolden other victims of Autopilot-involved crashes to seek similar justice. It also intensifies scrutiny on Tesla’s transparency and the wider responsibility of manufacturers deploying advanced driver assistance systems.
As Tesla appeals, the outcome could reshape legal and regulatory approaches to autonomous vehicle liabilities, safety standards, and corporate accountability.
Comments (0)
Please sign in to leave a comment