The truth about the future of space tourism
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Tesla ordered to pay more than $US200m in Autopilot crash case
Miami: 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 $US200 million in punitive 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 cell phone 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 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. Tesla said it made a mistake after being shown the evidence and honestly hadn't thought it was there. 'Today's verdict is wrong,' Teslas lawyers said in a statement, 'and only works to set back automotive safety and jeopardise Tesla's and the entire industry's efforts to develop and implement life-saving technology,' They said the plaintiffs concocted a story 'blaming the car when the driver – from day one – admitted and accepted responsibility.' The lawyers said Tesla plans to appeal.
The Age
an hour ago
- The Age
Tesla ordered to pay more than $US200m in Autopilot crash case
Miami: 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 $US200 million in punitive 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 cell phone 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 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. Tesla said it made a mistake after being shown the evidence and honestly hadn't thought it was there. 'Today's verdict is wrong,' Teslas lawyers said in a statement, 'and only works to set back automotive safety and jeopardise Tesla's and the entire industry's efforts to develop and implement life-saving technology,' They said the plaintiffs concocted a story 'blaming the car when the driver – from day one – admitted and accepted responsibility.' The lawyers said Tesla plans to appeal.
ABC News
a day ago
- ABC News
High Court rejects X appeal against notice to explain sharing of child abuse material
The High Court has rejected an appeal made by X Corp against a notice the tech company was given by the office of eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant demanding an explanation about child abuse material shared on the social media platform X, formerly Twitter. Three federal judges on Thursday unanimously rejected X's appeal against a federal court decision made in October last year that the company was obliged to respond to the notice, which demanded details on how the Elon Musk-owned company was combating widespread child exploitation material. The tech company was also ordered to pay the commissioner's legal costs. Ms Inman Grant's office describes itself as the world's first government agency dedicated to keeping people safe online. The commissioner has also driven world-first legislation that will ban Australian children younger than 16 from social media platforms, including X, from December. The federal court case dates back to early 2023, when Ms Inman Grant asked some of the world's largest technology companies to report on what they were doing about child abuse material appearing on their platforms. A reporting notice, issued under Australia's Online Safety Act, was sent to Twitter in February that year. Twitter then merged with X the following month. Arguments presented to the court by X Corp against complying with the order included that Twitter no longer existed as a legal entity and that X did not carry its predecessor's regulatory obligations in Australia. Ms Inman Grant, a former Twitter employee, welcomed the ruling on Thursday. "This judgement confirms the obligations to comply with Australian regulations still apply, regardless of a foreign company's merger with another foreign company," she said in a statement. She said her agency would continue enforcing the Online Safety Act and "holding all tech companies to account without fear or favour, ensuring they comply with the laws of Australia." A lawyer representing X, Justin Quill, said he had not yet read the appeals court judges' reasons and could not comment on the possibility of a High Court appeal. The High Court only hears around 10 per cent of appeal applications, so the federal court full-bench decision could be final in X's case. X's media office did not immediately respond to an email request for comment on Thursday. In 2023, Ms Inman Grant's office fined X $610,500 for failing to fully explain how it tackled child exploitation content. X's response was considered incomplete or misleading. X refused to pay, and the penalty is the subject of a separate and ongoing federal court case. AP
