Within Tesla's Legal Battle to Reverse the $329 Million Verdict from the Autopilot Crash | Carscoops

      Tesla is contending with a $329 million verdict related to a fatal incident in Florida, as it seeks a new trial that may influence driver-assistance regulations.

      A jury awarded $329 million following a 2019 crash in Miami that resulted in the death of Naibel Benavides Leon. Tesla attributes the accident to driver George McGee, asserting he disregarded warnings and bypassed the vehicle's safety features. The plaintiffs claim that Tesla exaggerated Autopilot's capabilities, leading drivers to misunderstand the system's limitations.

      Tesla has consistently triumphed in legal disputes over its semi-autonomous Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (Supervised) features, but this changed when a Florida jury ruled that the company was partially responsible for a deadly crash. In response, Tesla is advocating for a new trial, arguing that the verdict might hinder the advancement of safety technologies.

      The case involves the tragic death of Naibel Benavides Leon, 22, who lost her life when a 2019 Model S collided with a stationary Chevrolet Tahoe in Miami-Dade County in 2019. Her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo, sustained serious injuries during the incident.

      Driver George McGee admitted that he dropped his phone, took his attention off the road, and assumed the vehicle would stop by itself. He also acknowledged his negligence and the excessive trust he placed in the car.

      Despite this admission, the jury deemed Tesla 33 percent liable, awarding $42.5 million in compensatory damages and an exceptional $200 million in punitive damages. Jurors were reportedly influenced by the plaintiffs' assertion that Tesla exaggerated Autopilot's abilities, despite the company frequently reminding drivers to remain vigilant and keep their hands on the wheel. Tesla acknowledges the tragedy of the situation but places the entire blame on McGee's "extraordinary recklessness."

      In its legal documents, Tesla stated, "No other car in existence would have stopped when the driver was telling it to ‘go.’" The company claims McGee acted "extremely recklessly" by disregarding or overriding all safety measures in his vehicle, including pressing the accelerator, which negates the system's cruise control and braking capabilities. While the situation is undoubtedly complex, Tesla raises several noteworthy points.

      “For as long as there have been cars, there have been reckless, self-absorbed drivers like McGee,” Tesla argued. “Those drivers should face every legal consequence for their wrongful conduct. Holding Tesla accountable for supplying advanced safety features simply because a reckless driver chose to ignore them is incompatible with Florida law. Such a precedent would hinder the progress of safety innovations, potentially endangering lives now and in the future.”

      The central question revolves around the terminology and marketing of Autopilot. If it were referred to differently and branded in another way, it might be harder to hold Tesla accountable. The automaker has asked the judge to either mandate a new trial or reduce the damages awarded, a decision that will balance driver responsibility against driver-assistance technology. The ruling could significantly affect the future of automotive manufacturers and their approach to autonomy.