Tesla is currently involved in a federal trial in Florida concerning a 2019 crash that resulted in one fatality and serious injuries. The case focuses on the role of the company’s Autopilot system in the incident, with plaintiffs seeking US$345 million in damages. This marks the first time a jury in federal court is being asked to consider claims related to Tesla’s driver-assistance technology.
The lawsuit stems from a tragic incident in Key Largo, Florida, where 22-year-old Naibel Benavides was struck and killed by a Tesla Model S allegedly operating under Tesla’s Enhanced Autopilot. Her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo, was also severely injured in the crash, suffering broken bones, a traumatic brain injury, and long-term psychological trauma.
The crash occurred when the driver, George McGee, lost control of his vehicle while reaching for a dropped cellphone and accelerated through an intersection at over 60 mph.
The plaintiffs — Benavides’ estate and Angulo — argue that Tesla’s Autopilot system was defective and deceptively marketed, which contributed to the crash. On Thursday their attorneys asked the jury to award US$109 million in compensatory damages and an additional US$236 million in punitive damages, totaling US$345 million. (via CNBC)
This trial, taking place in the Southern District of Florida, marks the first time Tesla’s Autopilot system has been scrutinized in a federal courtroom before a jury. Until now, Tesla has generally resolved such cases through settlements or private arbitration.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys contend that Tesla, under the leadership of CEO Elon Musk, knowingly overstated the capabilities and safety of its partially automated driving technology. They claim Tesla encouraged drivers to place too much trust in Autopilot despite limitations that made the system unsuitable for complex driving environments like intersections and local roads.
Expert witnesses for the plaintiffs presented past statements by Musk and Tesla promoting Autopilot as a near self-driving technology. They argued Tesla failed to implement critical safety features or restrict use of the system to appropriate road conditions.
Tesla’s defense team pushed back, asserting that the company provided clear instructions to drivers about the limitations of Autopilot. They argued that McGee’s decision to look away from the road and accelerate through the intersection was the true cause of the crash. In closing arguments, Tesla lawyers emphasized the company’s mission to enhance vehicle safety and cautioned that a verdict against Tesla could have a chilling effect on innovation in autonomous technology.
The driver, George McGee, was previously charged with careless driving and did not contest the charge. He also reached a legal settlement with the Benavides family prior to the trial. However, the current case aims to hold Tesla accountable for what the plaintiffs say was reckless development and promotion of its automated features.
Judge Beth Bloom allowed the trial to proceed earlier this month, writing in a pretrial order that “a reasonable jury could find that Tesla acted in reckless disregard of human life for the sake of developing their product and maximizing profit.”
The jury’s decision could have far-reaching implications not only for Tesla but for the broader autonomous vehicle industry, where questions about safety, accountability, and transparency continue to grow.
