Tesla liable for $243m in fatal Key Largo crash, jury blames autopilot
On rebuttal, plaintiff's attorney Brett Schreiber told jurors that Tesla promoted the autopilot feature knowing it increased the likelihood of distracting drivers. Schreiber displayed a 2016 statement by Musk saying the emergency braking feature could detect anything, including an alien spaceship or a hunk of metal in the road.
Tesla's driver assistance technology was blamed for enabling driver distraction, leading to the fatal crash. Photo / Getty Images
'In the showroom, it's the greatest car ever made,' Schreiber said. 'In the courtroom, they say it's a jalopy.
'Tesla knew for years that its product was defective,' he added. 'Despite that people were using autopilot irresponsibly. This was a case of systematic failure.'
The outcome is a massive blow to Musk, who has staked the future of his company on fully autonomous driving. Tesla is facing several similar lawsuits across the country that allege the CEO and his company have overstated the capabilities of the technology. Friday's verdict could now open Tesla up to more liability in the future.
The verdict comes at a particularly vulnerable moment for Tesla, which has been struggling since Musk's controversial foray into politics. The company's sales and profits tanked after Musk joined the Trump administration and led its controversial cost-cutting initiative, the US Doge Service. The billionaire left the administration after a fiery public fallout with the President over his spending Bill – but Tesla's finances have yet to recover.
Tesla faced two California juries in 2023 for alleged defects and was found not liable in both cases. It has also settled at least four such cases out of court that alleged defects with its technology, including one regarding a separate autopilot-related case just days before the Miami trial was set to begin.
In Oakland, California, state regulators are also fighting to remove Tesla's ability to sell vehicles in the state over allegations that it dangerously misled drivers to believe its cars could drive themselves without human oversight. That case is ongoing.
In Miami, Tesla faced a highly technical and emotional three-week trial as the Benavides Leon family and Angulo attended nearly every day. The families sat through much of the testimony and attentively listened as attorneys dissected the crucial seconds leading up to the crash. The two sides sparred over whether the company's statements about autopilot were misleading, whether the company was forthcoming about critical evidence in the case – and if the crash could have been prevented at all.
The case also tested public sentiment of Musk, a controversial figure known for pushing boundaries and evolving technology out to the public. Last month, Tesla launched its fully autonomous Robotaxi in Austin, despite a lack of federal regulation and clear safety guidelines. Beyond Tesla, Musk's AI chatbot, Grok, came under fire last month after launching into an antisemitic rant.
The verdict could increase Tesla's future liability, amidst ongoing lawsuits and regulatory challenges. Photo / Getty Images
Several days into the trial, a juror was dismissed for perceived bias against Musk. The defence said it uncovered a 'vitriolic and venomous' tirade against Musk on one of the juror's social media pages, according to a court transcript provided to the Post. In a TikTok post from earlier this year, according to the transcript, the juror states 'A good Nazi is a dead one. Do you agree? F-U Elon Musk.'
The plaintiffs' attorney rested much of their defence on Musk's statements about autopilot, which they argue convinced his customers that his technology was more capable than reality. They highlighted statements from the CEO that claim autopilot has 'superhuman' sensors, that autonomous driving is a 'solved' problem and that his technology can see any object on the road including 'an alien spaceship'.
They also argued that Tesla acted recklessly by allowing autopilot to function on roads it is not designed for. Tesla's decision not to limit the technology to operate only on roads that meet the criteria in its own user manuals was the subject of a 2023 recall by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Advertisement
Still, the defence faced a tough legal battle, as Tesla has extensive warnings in its owner's manual and the law indicates that drivers are responsible for the trajectory of the vehicle despite the type of feature engaged. McGee, told police at the scene that he took his eyes off the road to pick up a dropped cellphone.
McGee said on the witness stand that he wasn't sure if he had heard Musk's comments about the technology and didn't believe they influenced his decision to buy the vehicle. He testified that he knew his Tesla 'was not self-driving' and that it was his 'job to always be alert as a driver'.
He also told the jury that he believed autopilot would lead him to have an overall 'safer drive' by helping him navigate on his long commute and avoid collisions.
'My concept was that it would assist me should I have a failure … or should I make a mistake,' he said. 'And in that case I feel like it failed me.'
Tesla's defence attorneys grilled Angulo and Benavides Leon's sister, Neima, about their previous lawsuit against McGee in which they settled over allegations that he operated his vehicle recklessly. The defence also mentioned the boat and home that Angulo bought since the crash.
Neima Benavides and Angulo told the jury that they didn't initially know McGee was using autopilot when they sued him.
But as time passed, Neima Benavides said they learned there were 'two components' in the crash.
'We have the driver,' she said. 'And we have the car too.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
New Trump tariffs: early modelling shows most economies lose - the US more than many
By Niven Winchester of President Trump announced tariffs on 2 April, pauses them a week later, and on 31 July reinstated and expanded the policy. Photo: CHIP SOMODEVILLA / Getty Images via AFP President Donald Trump's 2 April "Liberation Day" announcement placed reciprocal tariffs on all countries. A week later, amid financial market turmoil, these tariffs were paused and replaced by a 10 percent baseline tariff on most goods. On 31 July, however, the Trump Administration and expanded the reciprocal tariff policy. Most of these updated tariffs are scheduled to take effect on August 7. To evaluate the impact of these latest tariffs , we also need to take into account recently negotiated free trade agreements (such as the US-European Union deal), the 50 percent tariffs imposed on steel and aluminium imports, and tariff exemptions for imports of smartphones, computers and other electronics. For selected countries, the reciprocal tariffs announced on 2 April and the revised values of these tariffs are shown in the table below. The revised additional tariffs are highest for Brazil (50 percent) and Switzerland (39 percent), and lowest for Australia and the United Kingdom (10 percent). For most countries, the revised tariffs are lower than the original ones. But Brazil, Switzerland and New Zealand are subject to higher tariffs than those announced in April. In addition to the tariffs displayed above, Canadian and Mexican goods not registered as compliant with the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement are subject to tariffs of 35 percent and 25 percent respectively. Economic impacts The economic impacts of the revised tariffs are examined using a global model of goods and services markets, covering production, trade and consumption. A similar model was used to assess the impacts of the original reciprocal tariffs and the outcome of a US-China trade war. GDP impacts of the tariffs are displayed in the table below. The impacts of the additional tariffs are evaluated relative to trade measures in place before Trump's second term. Retaliatory tariffs are not considered in the analysis. The tariffs reduce US annual GDP by 0.36 percent. This equates to US$108.2 billion or $861 per household per year (all amounts in this article are in US dollars). The change in US GDP is an aggregate of impacts involving several factors. The tariffs will compel foreign producers to lower their prices. But these price decreases only partially offset the cost of the tariffs, so US consumers pay higher prices. Businesses also pay more for parts and materials. Ultimately, these higher prices hurt the US economy. The tariffs decrease US merchandise imports by $486.7 billion. But as they drive up the cost of US supply chains and shift more workers and resources into industries that compete with imports, away from other parts of the economy, they also decrease US merchandise exports by $451.1 billion. For most other countries, the additional tariffs reduce GDP. Switzerland's GDP decreases by 0.47 percent, equivalent to $1,215 per household per year. Proportional GDP decreases are also relatively large for Thailand (0.44 percent) and Taiwan (0.38 percent). In dollar terms, GDP decreases are relatively large for China ($66.9 billion) and the European Union ($26.6 billion). Australia and the United Kingdom gain from the tariffs ($0.1 billion and $0.07 billion respectively), primarily due to the relatively low tariffs levied on these countries. Despite facing relatively low additional tariffs, New Zealand's GDP decreases by 0.15 percent ($204 per household) as many of its agricultural exports compete with Australian commodities, which are subject to an even lower tariff. Although the revised reciprocal tariffs are, on average, lower than those announced on 2 April, they are still a substantial shock to the global trading system. Financial markets have been buoyant since Trump paused reciprocal tariffs on 9 April, partly on the hope that the tariffs would never be imposed. US tariffs of at least 10 percent to 15 percent now appear to be the new norm. As US warehouses run down inventories and stockpiles, there could be a rocky road ahead. * Niven Winchester is Professor of Economics, Auckland University of Technology This story was first published by The Conversation
NZ Herald
2 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Cutting red tape key to NZ's infrastructure success
These days we find it difficult to get consent for a solar farm. Not even build it, just to get permission to build it. Click here for an alternative view: Julie Anne Genter: Time to prioritise public good over private gain In my view, New Zealand is at an inflection point and we have two choices. One option is we grow slowly – or not at all. We muddle along, take years to make tough decisions, react to things as they come up, and just largely accept the status quo. I call this managed mediocrity. At worst, it is managed decline. The other option is that we make the tough decisions that successive governments have put in the too-hard basket — on planning, housing markets, transport pricing, and more. We take advantage of our extraordinary natural competitive advantages – like cheap, renewable energy – to accelerate growth, increase our standard of living and make us better off than we are today. Achieving this prosperous future won't just magically happen. As I've said before, we need to start saying 'yes' a lot more, and 'no' a lot less. This is especially true for infrastructure. Chris Bishop. Photo / Getty Images Throwing money at the problem won't fix things, because our current system is too inefficient. Despite being in the top 10% of high-income countries for infrastructure spend, we are in the bottom 10% for outcomes. In reality, this looks like poor bang for our buck, funding gaps, cost overruns, delays, and – often – worn-down assets that don't do their job. It isn't good enough. The only way to fix our problems is to get the underlying system settings right, and that's what I've focused on as Infrastructure Minister: developing a National Infrastructure Plan, improving funding and financing, sorting out consenting and planning, improving education and health infrastructure, and strengthening asset management and resilience. These priorities are in response to what I've heard from industry and infrastructure experts, both in New Zealand and overseas. National Infrastructure Plan (NIP) Last month, the Infrastructure Commission released the draft NIP. As Minister for Infrastructure, I hear regularly that what New Zealand needs is a long-term infrastructure plan that transcends political cycles. I agree. A plan will give the private sector more certainty so that they can invest in people and equipment. But a plan is only as good as it's execution. So, the NIP will only be successful if it is – at least in part – accepted and adopted across successive governments over the long term. It's worth noting that this isn't our first plan. New Zealand had infrastructure plans in 2010, 2011, and 2015. Depressingly, some recommendations in these older plans are identical to those put forward in this plan, more than a decade later. I'm thinking of things like agencies completing 10-year capital plans and making better use of pricing tools. What differentiates this plan is that it has been developed independently by the Infrastructure Commission – separate from the government of the day. The NIP is not this Government's plan. It's New Zealand's plan. Each political party in Parliament was offered a briefing on the NIP. I'm really pleased that most parties accepted the offer and have had one or more meetings with the Commission. Building greater consensus on infrastructure is, unfortunately, not as simple as different political parties getting in a room and convincing each other of the other's view. That's not realistic. Instead, consensus will be enabled by strong systems and institutions, robust investment frameworks, high-quality evidence of our infrastructure needs, and advocacy for projects and policies from a better-informed public. That's what this plan is about. People also often say, we need a bipartisan infrastructure pipeline, as if that will solve all problems. We do have a robust infrastructure pipeline. The Commission has been running it for more than five years, and it's been progressively improved over that time. The pipeline has more than 8000 initiatives underway and in planning, from 114 contributing organisations. It represents more than $200 billion in investment value – with over $110b of the pipeline having a funding source confirmed. I suspect that almost all of the projects underway right now are supported by everyone in Parliament. It's the high-profile and high-cost disagreements that make the headlines. But it's the low-profile and often low-cost projects that actually make New Zealand. My own view is that we need to move away from the rhetoric of needing a bipartisan pipeline and instead build bipartisan consensus on the idea that governments of all flavours should use best-practice to plan, select, fund and finance, deliver, and look after infrastructure. That's not the case at the moment and it's what I'm working so hard to fix. Improving Infrastructure Funding and Financing An important priority is improving infrastructure funding and financing. Currently, infrastructure is primarily paid for by taxpayers or ratepayers. This makes sense for some infrastructure like schools and hospitals, but our reliance on this blunt approach has led to challenges like congestion, run-down assets, and the unresponsive provision of enabling infrastructure – contributing to unaffordable housing. In 2024, the Government released a suite of frameworks and guidance – like Treasury's Funding and Financing Framework and a new market-led proposal process – to help the Crown be a smarter owner and purchaser of infrastructure services. This year, I announced five changes to New Zealand's funding and financing toolkit including improving the IFF Act and shifting councils from Development Contributions to a new Development Levy system. These changes will move us to a future state where councils can fully recover the costs of housing growth, and where infrastructure providers can recover costs of significant and city-shaping projects. And today, at the Building Nations summit, I will be announcing a shift in our approach to road user charges. Improving the consenting framework Arguably, the biggest improvement we are making to the infrastructure system is fixing the Resource Management Act (RMA). Consenting takes too long, costs way too much, and makes delivering the infrastructure we need too difficult. We are on track to replace the RMA with new legislation next year. Our new system will be effects-based, embrace standardised zoning and be far more permissive and enabling – while also protecting the environment. An independent analysis by Castalia estimated the new system could reduce compliance and administrative costs by $14.8b – potentially removing about 10 Transmission Gullys-worth of red tape from the economy. It will be a game changer. Better asset management is a key recommendation of the draft NIP. Everyone knows if you don't paint the weatherboards on your house, the wood will rot. Billion-dollar infrastructure is fundamentally no different. Unfortunately, due to decades of diverted maintenance spending, lack of asset registers, and lack of asset management plans, we have schools with leaking roofs, sewage leaks in our hospitals, asbestos in police stations, service outages of commuter rail, and mouldy defence accommodation. Strengthening asset management and resilience In May this year we started a work programme that will improve asset management in central government. We are considering fundamental changes such as legislatively requiring agencies to prepare and publish long-term Asset Management and Investment Plans, and to report on their performance. Regulated utilities and local government are legislatively required to do these things – I don't see why central government thinks it should hold others to a higher standard than it does itself. A couple of weeks ago the Minister for Economic Growth and I released an infrastructure update showing that more than $6b of government-funded construction is due to start between now and Christmas. Workers will start construction on $3.9b of roading projects – like Melling and Ōtaki to north of Levin, $800 million of school property projects, and a range of health projects and other government buildings. Some people said that these projects were 'already announced'. They missed the point. A non-trivial number of these projects were funded all the way back in 2016-2020 – but never started construction. As Government, we are getting on with building infrastructure — not just announcing it. And we're fixing the system, to help build and maintain better infrastructure for all Kiwis. Chris Bishop is the Minister for Infrastructure and National MP for Hutt South.
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
Tesla approves share award worth $29 billion to CEO Elon Musk
By Aditya Soni , Reuters The new pay deal is at keeping the Musk at the helm of Tesla as it pivots from its core auto business to robotaxis and humanoid robots. Photo: AFP / Pool / Chip Somodevilla Tesla has granted CEO Elon Musk shares worth about US$29 billion in a new pay deal aimed at keeping the billionaire entrepreneur at the helm during a crucial pivot from its struggling core auto business to robotaxis and humanoid robots. The company described the "interim award" of the 96 million new shares as a first step, "good faith" payment to honor Musk's more than US$50b pay package from 2018 that was struck down by a Delaware court last year. Musk can claim the new award if he remains in a top executive role for another two years and a court does not reinstate the 2018 package currently on appeal. He has to hold the shares for five years and can buy them for US$23.34 per share, the same as the exercise price of the 2018 award. Tesla will also put to vote a longer-term CEO compensation plan at its annual investor meeting on 6 November. The move is meant to keep Musk, the public face of Tesla and architect of its robotaxi strategy, focused on the electric-vehicle maker as it navigates a shift to cybercabs and robotics from its mainstay auto business. It also seems to quell any speculation that the board's patience with Musk could be wearing thin because of the recent tumultuous months, including the CEO's foray into politics. The move to give Musk greater control of the company suggests that directors still see him as best-suited to tackle Tesla's growing list of challenges in the years ahead. Sales have been falling at the company due to its aging vehicle line-up, tough competition and Musk's right-wing political stances that have tarnished its brand. S&P Global Mobility data shared exclusively with Reuters showed on Monday that Tesla's brand loyalty had plunged since Musk endorsed U.S. President Donald Trump last summer. Musk's involvement in politics and his wider business empire, including AI startup xAI, have also sparked concerns about his devotion to Tesla, the main source of his wealth. Musk has threatened to leave unless he gets more control over Tesla. The new stock award will take his Tesla stake, already the largest, to more than 15% from the 12.7% currently, according to Reuters calculations based on data compiled by LSEG. Before Monday's grant, Musk had no active compensation plan and Tesla said he had not received meaningful pay since 2017. With the legal fight over his 2018 package expected to continue, the board said it moved to retain Musk's "extraordinary talent." "While we recognize Elon's business ventures, interests and other potential demands on his time and attention are extensive and wide-ranging... we are confident this award will incentivize Elon to remain at Tesla," said a special committee Tesla formed this year to consider Musk's compensation. It consists of chair Robyn Denholm and independent director Kathleen Wilson-Thompson. The company said it would not record compensation expense for the award as it does not currently expect the performance condition to be "probable of being met." It will re-evaluate and recognize the expense if it determines the award is likely to be met, including after the two-year vesting period. The new shares will also be forfeited or offset if the Delaware courts fully reinstate the 2018 stock award, ensuring there is no "double dip," the special committee said. Investors and analysts welcomed the news, with Tesla shares rising nearly 2% in early trading. The stock has lost a quarter of its value this year, as of last close. "Under normal circumstances, a compensation package in the billions would raise some eyebrows. (But) clearly investors have benefited from Musk's stewardship of Tesla," said Camelthorn Investments adviser Shawn Campbell, who owns Tesla shares. "This stock grant will bind Musk to Tesla for the next two years." The Delaware ruling on Musk's 2018 pay package, the largest in Corporate America, had cited flaws in the board's approval process and unfairness to investors. Musk kicked off an appeal against the order in March, claiming a lower court judge made multiple legal errors in rescinding the record compensation. He has argued that the package resulted in spectacular growth for Tesla and yet was determined by the lower Court of Chancery to be unfair to shareholders, who voted twice to approve the plan. Tesla shares have risen nearly 2000 percent over the past decade, far outperforming the around 200% rise in the benchmark S&P 500 index in the same period. "This is simply a repackaged version of what was done years ago and was ruled improper by a judge. It renders the Delaware court decision effectively meaningless," said Charles Elson, founding director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware. "You don't have to incentivise him to stay. If he leaves, he throws away 13% of the company, which is still a huge part of his net worth, said Elson, who had filed amicus briefs supporting the court's decision to void Musk's 2018 award. - Reuters
