Tesla States There Is "No Obligation To Inform" Owners About Alleged Safety Issues | Carscoops

      A fiery crash lawsuit is rekindling discussions about contemporary vehicle safety after a passenger claims she was trapped due to defective doors, while Tesla refutes responsibility.

      The woman alleges that the faulty handles of the Model Y prevented her escape after a crash and fire in Virginia. Tesla is seeking dismissal of the case, citing arbitration, adherence to federal regulations, and jurisdictional issues. The automaker refutes all allegations, attributing any faults to driver negligence and requesting a jury trial.

      Car accidents frequently raise safety concerns, but incidents involving advanced technology can provoke complex debates about design and accountability. On December 9, 2023, a seemingly routine trip turned catastrophic for Susmita Maddi when her husband suffered a medical emergency, leading to a crash in their Model Y, where she sustained burns and other injuries.

      She subsequently filed a lawsuit against Tesla, with her attorneys claiming that the Model Y’s “door handles and locking system were poorly designed, hindering rescuers from getting the occupants out after the incident,” and that “the vehicle's warnings and instructions were insufficient.”

      Her legal representation also argues that the car “was defective and posed unreasonable danger due to inadequate design, manufacturing, or marketing to reduce injury risks.” They assert that the vehicle lacked crash-worthiness and that the cabin “was not escape-friendly or accessible” post-impact.

      In this instance, her legal team states that during the fire, witnesses couldn't open the door from outside because of a faulty handle and lock.

      Tesla has responded, asserting that it shouldn't have to defend itself in this situation. The core of the case lies in determining who is responsible for informing customers about design features.

      Legal Issues in Texas

      As stated in court documents accessed by Car Complaints, Tesla contends that it should not be in court at all. In filings with the Travis County District Court in Austin, the company highlighted the arbitration agreement that the owners accepted upon purchasing the car. It also claimed that Texas law does not require a post-sale duty to alert customers about alleged defects, referencing established case law.

      As Tesla noted, “Texas courts have clearly stated there is no post-sale duty to warn of, or recall, an allegedly defective product.”

      The term “allegedly” carries significant weight in this context. If the defect were verified, leading to a recall, Tesla and other automakers would indeed bear the responsibility of notifying owners. In this case, Tesla asserts that the Model Y meets all state and federal safety standards and is seeking a complete dismissal of the lawsuit, arguing that Virginia, where the crash happened, has a more pressing legal stake in the matter.

      Debate Over Accountability

      If the lawsuit proceeds, Tesla intends to take the case to a jury, asserting that any injuries resulted from factors beyond its control. “Tesla denies each and every material allegation in the Petition,” the company stated, demanding strict evidence, and asserts that if these issues are factual questions, the Plaintiff must prove them by a preponderance of the evidence to a jury.

      It is important to mention that the Model Y includes a manual door release situated in the armrest, placing the solution just inches away from Maddi. However, this case is among a number of instances where electric door mechanisms have been implicated in severe injuries or fatalities. Lawsuits of this nature may be a factor in Tesla potentially rethinking its handle design, similar to why companies like Ford have had to recall vehicles featuring comparable designs.