Elon Musk looms over jury selection in Tesla Autopilot fatality trial
'Anything that involves Elon Musk is very hard for me,' one potential juror said.
Another would-be juror said she could not be fair and impartial to Tesla because of the company's 'ethics, ownership and what I have seen in the news about its relation to the government.'
The case is the first suit against Tesla related to fatal crashes involving the electric vehicle company's Autopilot system to go to trial.
And it comes months after Musk's work as a top advisor to President Donald Trump made the billionaire a household name, synonymous with the massive federal workforce cuts undertaken by his brainchild, the Department of Government Efficiency.
The richest man in the world's subsequent falling out with Trump over the president's federal tax reform and spending bill made headlines and injected fresh drama into typically staid congressional votes.
A Tesla lawyer noted to the prospective jurors Monday, 'It's hard to hear the name Elon Musk and not have a view, positive or negative.'
'This case isn't about Musk. But he is connected to the company,' the attorney said, as they asked if jurors had views about Musk that they could not put aside.
Three would-be jurors raised their hands to say that, yes, they did have opinions Musk that would make it impossible for them to approach the case impartially.
'It would be hard. I understand he isn't Tesla. But he is very tied to the Tesla brand,' one man said, adding that he was unsure if he could set aside his views.
Two other jurors who had earlier voiced negative opinions of Musk reiterated those views to Tesla's lawyer.
The attorney asked one juror about what that man wrote in response to a jury questionnaire about hearing things in the news related to Tesla.
Two other jurors who previously spoke against Musk spoke again and shared the same opinions.
'This case is more about what happened rather than who it's for,' the man replied.
'I'm pretty independent,' he said. 'I can be impartial, it's about the accident and what happened.'
Six women and three men were selected for the jury.
The suit in U.S. District Court was filed against Tesla by the family of Naibel Benavides, the pedestrian who died from the crash and by her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo, who was seriously injured. The driver of the vehicle, George McGee, is not a defendant at the trial, and he reportedly settled with the plaintiffs earlier.
The plaintiffs allege that Tesla's Autopilot feature was defective and unsafe.
It is one of more than a dozen cases in which Tesla has been sued over fatal or injurious crashes where the company's Autopilot or Full Self-Driving (Supervised) modes had been in use by a driver.
FSD is the premium version of Tesla's partially automated driving system. Autopilot is a standard option on all new Tesla vehicles.
Tesla's website currently describes Autopilot as 'an advanced driver assistance system that enhances safety and convenience behind the wheel.'
'Additionally with Full Self-Driving (Supervised), you can drive your Tesla vehicle almost anywhere, making lane changes, select forks to follow your navigation route, navigate around other vehicles and objects and make left and right turns under your active supervision,' Tesla says.
After the jury was selected, a lawyer for the plaintiffs said in an opening statement, 'Evidence will show for years before and after this crime, Tesla ignored warnings.'
'You will hear evidence about those motivations and why Tesla did what they did,' the attorney said. 'Was it the Silicon Valley ethos of moving fast and breaking things? That is going to be the determination.'
'What is not in dispute is that the driver that crashed was careless, distracted, on his phone and dropped it, then grabbed it,' the attorney said. 'He plowed into my client at approximately 60 miles an hour.'
'This is a case about shared responsibility. Tesla will take no responsibility for the failures of their Autopilot system. Evidence will show that every actor needs a stage and Tesla set the stage for the preventable actions that bring us here,' said the lawyer.
Evidence will be introduced at trial that shows Musk made public statements about 'superhuman' sensors on Tesla vehicles, the attorney told the jury.
At one conference, Musk said the car was 'safer than a human,' according to the lawyer.
Tesla, in a statement provided to NBC News, said, 'The evidence clearly shows that this crash had nothing to do with Tesla's Autopilot technology. Instead, like so many unfortunate accidents since cell phones were invented, this was caused by a distracted driver.'
'To his credit, he took responsibility for his actions because he was searching for his dropped cell phone while also pressing the accelerator, speeding and overriding the car's system at the time of the crash. In 2019 when this occurred, no crash avoidance technology existed that could have prevented this tragic accident,' the company said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Auto Express
a few seconds ago
- Auto Express
Bring a friend, the six-seat Tesla Model Y L has leaked
A new Tesla Model Y L six-seat version has been leaked on China's Ministry of Industry and Information website, giving us our first undisguised look at the longer, more practical iteration of the American firm's hugely-popular electric SUV. The leak not only includes images to give us a look at the Model Y L ('L' seemingly standing for 'long-wheelbase'), but reveals some key technical information, too. Compared to the standard car's 4,760mm length, the Model Y L is 186mm longer - 150mm of that comes from expanding the distance between the two axles. Tesla has also increased the height of the L version, from 1,624mm to 1,668mm. Advertisement - Article continues below Those changes mean that the Model Y L now has space for six occupants with two up front, two in the middle and two in a third row. That's still not quite as capacious as the old Tesla Model Y model - which came with the option of seven seats. If the patent images are anything to go by, the Model Y L will also get a new design of 19-inch wheels, a new boot lip spoiler and a new gold paint finish. The patent filing suggests a dual-motor powertrain for the Model Y L with potentially 455bhp - more than the 375bhp output of the AWD dual-motor model we get in the UK. The long-wheelbase version does have to lug around some extra weight, however - 2,088kg compared to the regular-sized car's 1,997kg kerbweight. The addition of a more versatile Model Y should help Tesla's sales figures over in the crucial Chinese market, where the firm recently experienced a 12 per cent drop in sales over the first half of the year. There's no word yet on whether the Model Y L will come to the UK, though with BYD recently overtaking Tesla in the UK sales charts here, we might yet see reinforcement of the brand's mid-sized electric SUV range. Now you can buy a car through our network of top dealers around the UK. Search for the latest deals… Find a car with the experts New Xiaomi YU7 2025 review: a world-beating new EV to worry the establishment New Xiaomi YU7 2025 review: a world-beating new EV to worry the establishment BMW or Mercedes would do anything to keep the new Xiaomi YU7 from sale in the UK and Europe, and this is why Electric Car Grant in detail: Which cars will get the UK EV discount? Electric Car Grant in detail: Which cars will get the UK EV discount? The government has set out its plan to help reduce the cost of affordable EVs by introducing a new £3,750 Electric Car Grant for new EVs sold under £3… Electric Mercedes CLA Shooting Brake will keep going long after rivals need to stop Electric Mercedes CLA Shooting Brake will keep going long after rivals need to stop The second of Merc's new-era EVs is here in the form of an attractive estate with a huge range
Reuters
29 minutes ago
- Reuters
US SEC, Musk seek more time for billionaire to respond to SEC's lawsuit
NEW YORK, July 17 (Reuters) - The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and Elon Musk asked a federal judge on Thursday to give the billionaire more time to respond to the SEC's civil lawsuit accusing him of waiting too long in 2022 to reveal his large stake in Twitter, the social media company he later bought and renamed X. In a filing in federal court in Washington, D.C., the SEC and Musk said they have agreed to give Musk until August 29, 2025, to answer or otherwise respond to the lawsuit. He was due to respond by July 18.
Reuters
31 minutes ago
- Reuters
US Senate passes aid, public broadcasting cuts in victory for Trump
WASHINGTON, July 17 (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate early on Thursday approved President Donald Trump's plan for billions of dollars in cuts to funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting, handing the Republican president another victory as he exerts control over Congress with little opposition. The Senate voted 51 to 48 in favor of Trump's request to cut $9 billion in spending already approved by Congress. Most of the cuts are to programs to assist foreign countries suffering from disease, war and natural disasters, but the plan also eliminates all $1.1 billion the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was due to receive over the next two years. Trump and many of his fellow Republicans argue that spending on public broadcasting is an unnecessary expense and reject its news coverage as suffering from anti-right bias. Standalone rescission packages have not passed in decades, with lawmakers reluctant to cede their constitutionally mandated control of spending. But Trump's Republicans, who hold narrow majorities in the Senate and House, have shown little appetite for resisting his policies since he began his second term in January. The $9 billion at stake is extremely small in the context of the $6.8 trillion federal budget, and represents only a tiny portion of all the funds approved by Congress that the Trump administration has held up while it has pursued sweeping cuts, many ordered by billionaire Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. As of mid-June, Trump was blocking $425 billion in funding that had already been appropriated and previously approved by Congress, according to Democratic lawmakers tracking frozen funding. However, Trump and his supporters have promised more of the "rescission" requests to eliminate previously approved spending in what they say is an effort to pare back the federal government. The House of Representatives passed the rescissions legislation without altering Trump's request by 214-212 last month. Four Republicans joined 208 Democrats in voting no. But after a handful of Republican senators balked at the extent of the cuts to global health programs, Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget, said on Tuesday that PEPFAR, a global program to fight HIV/AIDS launched in 2003 by then-President George W. Bush, was being exempted. The change brought the size of the package of cuts to $9 billion from $9.4 billion, requiring another House vote before the measure can be sent to the White House for Trump to sign into law. The rescissions must pass by Friday. Otherwise, the request would expire and the White House will be required to adhere to spending plans passed by Congress. Two of the Senate's 53 Republicans - Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine - joined Democrats in voting against the legislation. "You don't need to gut the entire Corporation for Public Broadcasting," Murkowski said in a Senate speech. She said the Trump administration also had not provided assurances that battles against diseases such as malaria and polio worldwide would be maintained. Most of all, Murkowski said, Congress must assert its role in deciding how federal funds were spent. Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota called Trump's request a "small, but important step toward fiscal sanity." Democrats scoffed at that, noting that congressional Republicans earlier this month passed a massive package of tax and spending cuts that nonpartisan analysts estimated would add more than $3 trillion to the nation's $36.2 trillion debt. Democrats charged Republicans with giving up Congress' Constitutionally-mandated control of federal spending. "Today, Senate Republicans turn this chamber into a subservient rubber stamp for the executive, at the behest of Donald Trump," Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said. "Republicans embrace the credo of cut, cut, cut now, and ask questions later," Schumer said. The cuts would overturn bipartisan spending agreements most recently passed in a full-year stopgap funding bill in March. Democrats warn a partisan cut now could make it more difficult to negotiate government funding bills that must pass with bipartisan agreement by September 30 to avoid a shutdown. Appropriations bills require 60 votes to move ahead in the Senate, but the rescissions package needs just 51, meaning Republicans can pass it without Democratic support.
