Tesla Challenges $243 Million Verdict in Autopilot Fatality Lawsuit

Tesla has requested a judge to overturn the $243 million verdict against the company regarding its Autopilot system or to allow for a new trial, based on a recent court filing.

The company’s lawyers argue that the verdict delivered by a jury earlier this month “contradicts fundamental Florida tort law, the Due Process Clause, and common sense.” This filing by Tesla’s legal team also inadvertently shifts some responsibility to the driver, George McGee, involved in the accident.

The jury determined that McGee was two-thirds responsible for the incident while allocating one-third of the liability to Tesla.

This significant case centered around a 2019 crash in Florida. McGee was driving a Tesla Model S at night while utilizing the Autopilot driver assistance system, which is less sophisticated than the “Full Self-Driving (Supervised)” software. Both systems require drivers to keep their hands on the wheel.

As McGee neared a perpendicularly parked SUV, neither he nor the Autopilot activated the brakes. McGee’s car ran a stop sign and struck the SUV, resulting in the death of 20-year-old Naibel Benavides Leon and serious injuries to her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo.

Separately, McGee was involved in a lawsuit and settled with the victims. Recently, it was revealed that Tesla rejected a $60 million settlement offer from the victims a few months before the verdict.

In its latest filing, Tesla’s attorneys maintain that product liability law is intended to hold manufacturers accountable when vehicles “operate in ways that grossly defy typical consumers’ expectations or are unreasonably hazardous.”

They claim that this case is not applicable under such law, arguing that McGee’s “extraordinary recklessness” significantly contributed to the incident, as he was reaching for his phone at the time—an acknowledgment he made during his own case.

Additionally, they contend that upholding the verdict would “stifle innovation, confuse consumer expectations, and compel manufacturers to avoid safety enhancements for fear of facing severe penalties if a driver misuses their product.”

Tesla’s lawyers also criticized the opposing counsel’s strategy, claiming they “overwhelmed this jury with a flood of highly prejudicial yet irrelevant evidence regarding data preservation, Elon Musk, and unrelated accidents.”

“The plaintiffs’ counsel ensured that this trial was never genuinely focused on the 2019 Tesla Model S or the incident caused by McGee’s reckless actions,” they claimed.

Brett Schreiber, a lead attorney for the plaintiffs, stated in an email, “This motion exemplifies Tesla and Musk’s complete disregard for the human cost of their flawed technology.”

“The jury reviewed all the facts and correctly concluded that this incident involved shared responsibility, which doesn’t diminish the critical role Autopilot and the company’s misrepresentations of its capabilities played in the accident that led to Naibel’s death and Dillon’s permanent injury,” Schreiber added. “We are confident that the court will uphold this verdict, which critiques not the autonomous vehicle industry but Tesla’s reckless and unsafe development and deployment of its Autopilot system.”

Article updated to include a statement from Brett Schreiber, a lead attorney for the plaintiffs.