Jury orders Tesla to pay more than $240 million in Autopilot crash case
A Miami jury decided that Elon Musk's car company Tesla was partly responsible for a deadly crash in Florida involving its Autopilot driver assist technology and must pay the victims more than $240 million in damages. The federal jury held that Tesla bore significant responsibility because its technology failed and that not all the blame can be put on a reckless driver, even one who admitted he was distracted by his cellphone before hitting a young couple out gazing at the stars. The decision comes as Musk seeks to convince Americans his cars are safe enough to drive on their own as he plans to roll out a driverless taxi service in several cities in the coming months. The decision ends a four-year-long case remarkable not just in its outcome, but that it even made it to trial. Many similar cases against Tesla have been dismissed and, when that didn't happen, settled by the company to avoid the spotlight of a trial. "This will open the floodgates," said Miguel Custodio, a car crash lawyer not involved in the Tesla case. "It will embolden a lot of people to come to court."
The case also included startling charges by lawyers for the family of the deceased, 22-year-old Naibel Benavides Leon, and for her injured boyfriend, Dillon Angulo. They claimed Tesla either hid or lost key evidence, including data and video recorded seconds before the accident. Tesla said it made a mistake after being shown the evidence and honestly hadn't thought it was there.
"We finally learned what happened that night, that the car was actually defective," said Benavides' sister, Neima Benavides. "Justice was achieved." Tesla has previously faced criticism that it is slow to cough up crucial data by relatives of other victims in Tesla crashes, accusations that the car company has denied. In this case, the plaintiffs showed Tesla had the evidence all along, despite its repeated denials, by hiring a forensic data expert who dug it up. "Today's verdict is wrong," Tesla said in a statement, "and only works to set back automotive safety and jeopardize Tesla's and the entire industry's efforts to develop and implement lifesaving technology," They said the plaintiffs concocted a story "blaming the car when the driver - from day one - admitted and accepted responsibility." In addition to a punitive award of $200 million, the jury said Tesla must also pay $43 million of a total $129 million in compensatory damages for the crash, bringing the total borne by the company to $243 million.
"It's a big number that will send shock waves to others in the industry," said financial analyst Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities. "It's not a good day for Tesla." Tesla said it will appeal. Even if that fails, the company says it will end up paying far less than what the jury decided because of a pre-trial agreement that limits punitive damages to three times Tesla's compensatory damages. Translation: $172 million, not $243 million. But the plaintiff says their deal was based on a multiple of all compensatory damages, not just Tesla's, and the figure the jury awarded is the one the company will have to pay. It's not clear how much of a hit to Tesla's reputation for safety the verdict in the Miami case will make. Tesla has vastly improved its technology since the crash on a dark, rural road in Key Largo, Florida, in 2019. But the issue of trust generally in the company came up several times in the case, including in closing arguments Thursday. The plaintiffs' lead lawyer, Brett Schreiber, said Tesla's decision to even use the term Autopilot showed it was willing to mislead people and take big risks with their lives because the system only helps drivers with lane changes, slowing a car and other tasks, falling far short of driving the car itself. Schreiber said other automakers use terms like "driver assist" and "copilot" to make sure drivers don't rely too much on the technology. "Words matter," Schreiber said. "And if someone is playing fast and lose with words, they're playing fast and lose with information and facts." Schreiber acknowledged that the driver, George McGee, was negligent when he blew through flashing lights, a stop sign and a T-intersection at 62 miles an hour before slamming into a Chevrolet Tahoe that the couple had parked to get a look at the stars. The Tahoe spun around so hard it was able to launch Benavides 75 feet through the air into nearby woods, where her body was later found. It also left Angulo, who walked into the courtroom Friday with a limp and cushion to sit on, with broken bones and a traumatic brain injury. But Schreiber said Tesla was at fault nonetheless. He said Tesla allowed drivers to act recklessly by not disengaging the Autopilot as soon as they begin to show signs of distraction and by allowing them to use the system on smaller roads that it was not designed for, like the one McGee was driving on. "I trusted the technology too much," said McGee at one point in his testimony. "I believed that if the car saw something in front of it, it would provide a warning and apply the brakes." The lead defence lawyer in the Miami case, Joel Smith, countered that Tesla warns drivers that they must keep their eyes on the road and hands on the wheel, yet McGee chose not to do that while he looked for a dropped cellphone, adding to the danger by speeding. Noting that McGee had gone through the same intersection 30 or 40 times previously and hadn't crashed during any of those trips, Smith said that isolated the cause to one thing alone: "The cause is that he dropped his cellphone." The auto industry has been watching the case closely because a finding of Tesla's liability despite a driver's admission of reckless behaviour would pose significant legal risks for every company as they develop cars that increasingly drive themselves.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Electric cars: Still needing a push?
People have been dreaming about electric cars for a long time. In fact, the first electric car, called the Electrobat, was already driving around in 1894! And in 1909, an electric car even beat a petrol (gasoline) car in a traffic race. So why aren't electric cars everywhere by now? Right now, only about 25 out of every 100 cars sold in the world are electric. That may sound like a lot, but most of these cars are made and bought in just one country — China. That means in the rest of the world, most people still use petrol or diesel cars, called ICE cars (short for internal combustion engine). Even Tesla, the most famous electric car company, is struggling. It's selling fewer cars in Europe, and it's making less money. One big reason Tesla made so much money before was by selling something called carbon credits — basically, rewards from the government for making clean cars. But those rewards are starting to go away, especially in the US. And soon, people in the US will also lose a big $7,500 discount they got for buying electric cars. China also spent a huge amount of money — around $231 billion — to help its electric car industry grow. Now, Chinese carmakers are building more cars than people want to buy, which is causing problems. This raises a big question: If electric cars are really the future, why do they still need so much help from governments? When Henry Ford built his Model T car in 1908, it cost $850. Within a few years, he made it so efficiently that it cost only $300 — and millions of people bought it. He didn't need any government help to do that. Electric cars are amazing for the planet. But maybe, just maybe, they need to learn how to survive without help — and roll forward on their own four wheels. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
‘Hire Americans': Miami hotel slammed for outsourcing front desk to India
A video that shows the front desk of a Florida hotel being manned by a virtual receptionist has sparked outrage in the United States. The video has raised concerns about American jobs being outsourced to other countries at a time when the anti-immigrant sentiment is at an all-time high. A video of a virtual receptionist at an American hotel has sparked outcry (Instagram/@languageguy1) Video of virtual front desk staffer sparks outrage The video was first shared by Pete Langs (@languageguy1) on TikTok and Instagram. It shows Langs checking into his room with the help of a man who sits not at the front desk but appears on a screen during the check-in process. 'Do you need one room key or two room keys?' the virtual front desk employee asks Langs, who replies, 'Two, just in case I lose one.' The receptionist, speaking over a video call through the screen, issues further check-in instructions and generates the registration form. 'Miami virtual check in at hotels!' Langs wrote while sharing the video on TikTok and Instagram. The video was reposted on X, where it sparked outcry against Indians for 'stealing' American jobs. Although there is nothing in the video to indicate that the front desk employee is Indian or not living in the US, viewers surmised from his appearance and accent that he belongs to the subcontinent. 'Hire Americans' 'Miami hotel has outsourced their front desk to India. Guests are checked in virtually on video call with an Indian representative,' read the caption on X. 'More American jobs outsourced overseas. At some point this should just become illegal. If you make money in America, you should hire Americans'. The comments section of the video was therefore quickly flooded with outrage as Americans blamed Indians for taking jobs. Many people also slammed the hotel for outsourcing the front desk role to someone sitting outside the US. 'So American jobs are being taken by Indian people overseas AND AI at the same time. Two slaps in the face,' a user said. 'The irony is people will hate the Indians who are just doing a job while completely ignoring the American bosses and shareholders who actually made the decision to outsource these jobs in the first place,' another pointed out. 'It's up to people to actually walk out. The problem is these hotels are cheaper than everyone else because they're hiring outside the country,' a third added.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
US policymakers may start relying on Trump tariffs for federal revenue
Andrew Duehren US President Donald Trump's extensive tariffs have already started to generate a significant amount of money for the federal government, a new source of revenue for a heavily indebted nation that US policymakers may start to rely on. As part of his quest to reorder the global trading system, Trump has imposed steep tariffs on America's trading partners, with the bulk of those set to go into effect on August 7. Even before the latest tariffs kick in, revenue from taxes collected on imported goods has grown dramatically so far this year. Customs duties, along with some excise taxes, generated $152 billion through July, roughly double the $78 billion netted over the same time period last fiscal year, according to Treasury data. Indeed, Trump has routinely cited the tariff revenue as evidence that his trade approach, which has sowed uncertainty and begun to increase prices for consumers, is a win for the United States. Members of his administration have argued that the money from the tariffs would help plug the hole created by the broad tax cuts Congress passed last month, which are expected to cost the government at least $3.4 trillion. 'The good news is that Tariffs are bringing Billions of Dollars into the USA!' Trump said on social media shortly after a weak jobs report showed signs of strain in the labour market. Over time, analysts expect that the tariffs, if left in place, could be worth more than $2 trillion in additional revenue over the next decade. Economists overwhelmingly hope that doesn't happen and the United States abandons the new trade barriers. But some acknowledge that such a substantial stream of revenue could end up being hard to quit. 'I think this is addictive,' said Joao Gomes, an economist at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. 'I think a source of revenue is very hard to turn away from when the debt and deficit are what they are.' Trump has long fantasised about replacing taxes on income with tariffs. He often refers fondly to American fiscal policy in the late 19th century, when there was no income tax and the government relied on tariffs, citing that as a model for the future. And while income and payroll taxes remain by far the most important sources of government revenue, the combination of Trump's tariffs and the latest Republican tax cut does, on the margin, move the US away from taxing earnings and toward taxing goods. Such a shift is expected to be regressive, meaning that rich Americans will fare better than poorer Americans under the change. That's because cutting taxes on income does, in general, provide the biggest benefit to richer Americans who earn the most income. The recent Republican cut to income taxes and the social safety net is perhaps the most regressive piece of major legislation in decades. Placing new taxes on imported products, however, is expected to raise the cost of everyday goods. Lower-income Americans spend more on those more expensive goods, meaning the tariffs amount to larger tax increase for them compared to richer Americans. Tariffs have begun to bleed into consumer prices, with many companies saying they will have to start raising prices as a result of added costs. And analysts expect the tariffs to weigh on the performance of the economy overall, which in turn could reduce the amount of traditional income tax revenue the government collects every year. 'Is there a better way to raise that amount of revenue? The economic answer is: Yes, there is a better way, there are more efficient ways,' said Ernie Tedeschi, director of economics at the Yale Budget Lab and a former Biden administration official. 'But it's really a political question.' Tedeschi said that future leaders in Washington, whether Republican or Democrat, may be hesitant to roll back the tariffs if that would mean a further addition to the federal debt load, which is already raising alarms on Wall Street.
