A Miami federal jury has delivered a landmark verdict, finding Tesla partially responsible for a 2019 fatal crash that killed one person and seriously injured another. The jury ordered Tesla to pay over $242 million in damages, marking a significant legal defeat for the company in a trial over its Autopilot driver-assistance system.
The Case and the Crash
The case centered on a 2019 incident in which George McGee, driving a Tesla Model S with Autopilot engaged, drove through a T-intersection, ran a stop sign, and slammed into a parked Chevrolet Tahoe.
While McGee admitted he was distracted by his phone at the time, the plaintiffs’ attorneys argued that the Autopilot system was defective and that Tesla's marketing of the feature as "Autopilot" was misleading, giving drivers a false sense of security. They also presented evidence that Tesla had initially claimed to have lost key crash data, which a forensic expert hired by the plaintiffs was later able to recover. The recovered data reportedly showed the car knew it was about to run off the road and hit the parked car and pedestrian, but did nothing to stop it.
The Verdict and Its Implications
The jury found Tesla to be 33% responsible for the crash, with the driver, McGee, accounting for the remaining 67%. The total damages awarded were $329 million, with Tesla's portion of that amount reaching over $242 million, which includes a full punitive damages award of $200 million.
This verdict is a major blow to Tesla and could have far-reaching consequences. Many similar lawsuits against the company have been settled or dismissed before reaching trial. Legal experts believe this outcome could "open the floodgates" for more litigation, as it demonstrates that juries may be willing to hold automakers accountable for the failures of their semi-autonomous technology. The decision comes at a particularly sensitive time for Tesla, as CEO Elon Musk is preparing to launch a fully driverless "robotaxi" service.
In response to the verdict, Tesla released a statement calling the decision "wrong" and stating its intention to appeal.
0 Comments