Tesla was partly liable for automatic death 2019
A Miami jury Found TESLA to some extent in an accident in 2019 that killed one person and injured another – all while the driver of the Model used to use the automaker’s automotive driver.
The Tesla jury was compensated for $ 200 million in punishment, plus additional $ 43 million. (Due to state rules, the company is likely to be less expensive.) A jury was found one -third of the accident. The Tesla driver, who was stationed with the plaintiffs and testified during the trial, was responsible for the other two -thirds.
A Tesla spokesman, Jeff McAndruz, a spokesman for Tesla, said “the verdict is wrong.” He said Tesla would revise the “constitutional errors of the law and the irregularities in the trial.”
The petition is due to a 2019 crash in Florida Keys, where the driver of a Tesla Model S model automatically reached a T -intersection and kept his foot on the accelerator by not seeing the road ending. The car was parked into a vehicle and two people standing near the same way. One 22 -year -old pedestrian, Nayeber Benids Leon, was killed. His boyfriend, 26, Dillon Anglo, 26, was seriously injured.
Tesla’s lawyers said that the S model was not defective and that the Tesla driver was fishing for his cellphone during the accident and was therefore merely responsible.
The Autopilot TESLA feature has been blamed for dozens of accidents, but this is the first time the company has been responsible for an autopotelle accident. The company was not in charge in 2023 due to two deadly California accidents. And several petitions have set out outside the court, including one of the high -profile accidents 2018 that killed the Model X driver in the Silicon Valley. In 2023, the National Highway Traffic Safety Department, after spending two years in research on autopicelot crashes, led Tesla to issue a large auto -relevant call for an autopytes.
Separately, Tesla faced California’s administrative hearing last month after the state motor vehicle complained to the car maker, claiming that it had misled the customer on automatic restrictions and its newer and more advanced feature. The hearing, which an administrative judge is due to be resolved later this year, could lead to the loss of Tesla’s permission to sell and produce vehicles in California for up to 30 days.
During the Miami court three weeks, the plaintiffs’ lawyers argued that Tesla and the CEO of Elun Mesak created false expectations among drivers on autopicelot capabilities. Bert Sharibar’s chief lawyer pointed to a 2016 press conference in which the Tesla’s vision system means that its cars “should not” hit anything – even “an alien spaceship, a piece of junk metal falling from behind the truck.”
Despite marketing, Tesla’s guidebooks believe that drivers must be alert when using Autopilot and be ready to take over driving at a moment. Tesla added more “Nags” to its system after the call for drivers to pay more attention to the road and suspended automatic access if system detected. (After the test, consumer reports have asked whether these reforms solve the driver’s lack of attention.)
“Tesla decided to put its advanced technology on the roads of the community and be fully aware that leading government agencies for transportation safety in the country … have been told Tesla for years to make its product safe,” Sharibar said in a statement. “Years before the accident and years after the accident, Tesla ignored these warnings.”
