Tesla Challenges $243M Verdict in Autopilot Death Trial

Tesla Seeks to Overturn $243 Million Autopilot Verdict

Tesla has formally requested a judge to either dismiss the $243 million verdict issued against the company in a lawsuit concerning its Autopilot system, or to grant a new trial. This request is detailed in a recently submitted court document.

Legal Arguments Presented by Tesla

The company’s legal team contends that the jury’s decision, reached earlier this month, contradicts established Florida tort law, principles of Due Process, and logical reasoning. Tesla’s counsel is again attempting to place the primary responsibility for the accident on the driver, George McGee, asserting his actions contributed to the incident.

The jury apportioned blame, assigning two-thirds to the driver and one-third to Tesla.

Details of the 2019 Florida Crash

The case revolves around a 2019 collision that occurred in Florida. McGee was operating a Tesla Model S at night while utilizing the company’s Autopilot driver assistance system. It’s important to note that Autopilot is less advanced than Tesla’s “Full Self-Driving (Supervised)” software.

Both systems necessitate that the driver maintains their hands on the steering wheel at all times. As McGee neared a perpendicularly parked SUV, neither he nor the Autopilot system initiated braking.

McGee’s vehicle proceeded through a stop sign, resulting in a collision with the SUV. Tragically, 20-year-old Naibel Benavides Leon was killed, and her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo, sustained severe injuries.

Settlement Attempts and Previous Litigation

McGee faced a separate lawsuit and reached a settlement with the victims. It was recently revealed that Tesla declined a $60 million settlement offer from the victims just prior to the verdict.

Tesla’s Interpretation of Product Liability Law

In the new filing, Tesla’s lawyers argue that product liability laws are intended to penalize manufacturers whose vehicles behave in a manner that is unexpectedly dangerous or deviates from consumer expectations.

They assert that this is not the situation in this instance. The lawyers emphasize McGee’s “extraordinary recklessness,” citing his admission that he was reaching for his phone at the time of the crash.

Tesla contends that upholding the verdict would discourage innovation, create confusion among consumers, and potentially lead manufacturers to avoid implementing safety features due to fear of substantial penalties when a product is misused.

Criticism of Opposing Counsel’s Tactics

Tesla’s legal representatives also criticize the opposing counsel’s approach, alleging they “overwhelmed the jury with a substantial amount of prejudicial and irrelevant evidence” – including information regarding data preservation, Elon Musk, and unrelated accidents.

They claim the trial was diverted from its focus on the 2019 Tesla Model S and McGee’s driving.

Plaintiffs’ Response

Brett Schreiber, a lead attorney representing the plaintiffs, stated in an email that the motion represents “Tesla and Musk’s complete disregard for the human cost of their defective technology.”

Schreiber continued, emphasizing that the jury’s decision acknowledged shared responsibility, but also recognized the significant role Autopilot and the company’s representations about its capabilities played in the fatal crash.

He expressed confidence that the court would uphold the verdict, viewing it as a condemnation of Tesla’s unsafe development and deployment of its Autopilot system, rather than an indictment of the autonomous vehicle industry as a whole.

Update

This article has been updated to include a statement from Brett Schreiber, a lead attorney for the plaintiffs.