Tesla’s Historic Victory: US Autopilot Trial Pronounces Verdict in Fatal Crash Case

A Tesla Model X is shown at a Tesla service center in Costa Mesa, California, U.S., October 20, 2020.

Reuters/Mike Blake/File Photo

Acquire Licensing Rights

Oct 31 (Reuters) – Tesla (TSLA.O) emerged triumphant on Tuesday after winning its first U.S. trial involving allegations that its Autopilot driver assistant feature was responsible for a fatal accident. This victory is significant for the automaker as it faces multiple similar lawsuits nationwide.

This marks Tesla’s second major legal win this year, with previous juries ruling against claims of defective software. Tesla has been actively testing and deploying its Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (FSD) systems, both of which CEO Elon Musk considers pivotal to the company’s future. However, these advancements have attracted regulatory and legal scrutiny.

The recent case, held in a California state court, was brought by two passengers involved in a 2019 crash who alleged that Tesla had knowledge of the Autopilot defect prior to selling the vehicle. Tesla defended itself by attributing the crash to human error.

The 12-member jury unanimously ruled that the vehicle did not have a manufacturing defect after four days of deliberation. The final vote was 9-3.

Neither Tesla nor the plaintiffs’ representatives provided immediate comment on the verdict.

The civil lawsuit, filed in Riverside County Superior Court, claimed that the Autopilot system caused Micah Lee’s Model 3 to abruptly veer off a highway east of Los Angeles, collide with a palm tree, and burst into flames within seconds, resulting in Lee’s death and serious injuries to the two passengers. The plaintiffs sought $400 million in damages, along with punitive damages.

Tesla denied responsibility, asserting that Lee had consumed alcohol prior to driving. The company also argued that it was unclear whether Autopilot was engaged during the crash.

According to Matthew Wansley, a former general counsel of nuTonomy and associate professor at Cardozo School of Law, the steering issues in this particular case differ from previous lawsuits against Tesla. Other lawsuits allege that Autopilot is fundamentally flawed, leading drivers to misuse the system. However, the Riverside jury was only tasked with determining whether a manufacturing defect affected the steering, which Wansley believes could be confusing to jurors.

During the trial, the plaintiffs’ attorney presented an internal Tesla safety analysis from 2017, which identified “incorrect steering command” as a defect due to an “excessive” steering wheel angle. Tesla countered by stating that the safety analysis did not deem it a defect, but rather aimed to address any potential issues that could arise with the vehicle. The company subsequently developed a system to prevent Autopilot from making the same turn that caused the crash.

Tesla previously won a trial in Los Angeles in April by emphasizing that the company explicitly advises drivers that their technology requires continued human monitoring, despite the “Autopilot” and “Full Self-Driving” labels. The case involved an accident where a Model S veered into a curb, injuring the driver. Jurors who spoke to Reuters after the verdict stated that they believed Tesla adequately warned drivers about the system, placing blame on driver distraction.

Reporting by Dan Levine and Hyunjoo Jin; editing by Jonathan Oatis and Richard Chang

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Acquire Licensing Rights, opens new tab

Reference