Looming over two cases threatening Musk's car company is a single question: Can he be trusted?
In Miami, a Tesla driver who has admitted he was wrong to reach for a dropped cell phone moments before a deadly accident, spoke of the danger of putting too much faith in Musk's technology — in this case his Autopilot program.
'I trusted the technology too much,' said a visibly shaken George McGee, who slammed into a woman out stargazing, sending her 75 feet through the air. 'I believed that if the car saw something in front of it, it would provide a warning and apply the brakes.'
In unusual coincidence, regulators arguing an Oakland, California, case tried to pin exaggerated talk about the same Tesla technology at the center of a request to suspend the carmaker from being able to sell vehicles in the state.
Musk's tendency to talk big — whether its his cars, his rockets or his government costing-cutting efforts — have landed him in trouble with investors, regulators and courts before, but rarely at such a delicate moment.
After his social media spat with President Donald Trump, Musk can no longer count on a light regulatory touch from Washington. Meanwhile, sales of his electric cars have plunged and so a hit to his safety reputation could threaten his next big project: rolling out driverless robotaxis — hundreds of thousands of them — in several U.S. cities by the end of next year.
The Miami case holds other dangers, too. Lawyers for the family of the dead woman, Naibel Benavides Leon, recently convinced the judge overseeing the jury trial to allow them to argue for punitive damages. A car crash lawyer not involved in the case, but closely following it, said that could cost Tesla tens of millions of dollars, or possibly more.
'I've seen punitive damages go to the hundreds of millions, so that is the floor,' said Miguel Custodio of Los Angeles-based Custodio & Dubey. 'It is also a signal to other plaintiffs that they can also ask for punitive damages, and then the payments could start compounding.'
Tesla did not reply for a request for comment.
That Tesla has allowed the Miami case to proceed to trial is surprising. It has settled at least four deadly accidents involving Autopilot, including payments just last week to a Florida family of a Tesla driver. That said, Tesla was victorious in two other jury cases, both in California, that also sought to lay blame on its technology for crashes.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the Miami case argue that Tesla's driver-assistance feature, called Autopilot, should have warned the driver and braked when his Model S sedan blew through flashing lights, a stop sign and a T-intersection at 62 miles-an-hour in an April 2019 crash. Tesla said that drivers are warned not to rely on Autopilot, or its more advanced Full Self-Driving system. It say the fault entirely lies with the 'distracted driver' just like so many other 'accidents since cellphones were invented.'
Driver McGee settled a separate suit brought by the family of Benavides and her severely injured boyfriend, Dillon Angulo.
Shown dashcam video Monday of his car jumping the road a split second before killing Benavides, McGee was clearly shaken. Asked if he had seen those images before, McGee pinched his lips, shook his head, then squeaked out a response, 'No.'
Tesla's attorney sought to show that McGee was fully to blame, asking if he had ever contacted Tesla for additional instructions about how Autopilot or any other safety features worked. McGee said he had not, though he was heavy user of the features. He said he had driven the same road home from work 30 or 40 times. Under questioning he also acknowledged he alone was responsible for watching the road and hitting the brakes.
But lawyers for the Benavides family had another chance to parry that line of argument and asked McGee if he would have taken his eyes off the road and reached for his phone had he been driving any car other than a Tesla on Autopilot.
McGee responded, 'I don't believe so.'
The case is expected to continue for two more weeks.
Wednesdays
Columnist Jen Zoratti looks at what's next in arts, life and pop culture.
In the California case, the state's Department of Motor Vehicles is arguing before an administrative judge that Tesla has misled drivers by exaggerating the capabilities of its Autopilot and Full Self-Driving features. A court filing claims even those feature names are misleading because they offer just partial self-driving
Musk has been warned by federal regulators to stop making public comments suggesting Full Self-Driving allows his cars to drive themselves because it could lead to overreliance on the system, resulting in possible crashes and deaths. He also has run into trouble with regulators for Autopilot. In 2023, the company had to recall 2.3 million vehicles for problems with the technology and is now under investigation for saying it fixed the issue though it's unclear it has, according to regulatory documents.
The California case is expected to last another four days.
—-
Condon reported from New York.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
4 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Warpath to profitability?
Opinion The defence industry is often overlooked by investors. It's perceived as boring compared with technology or worse, it's just an unethical way to put profit in the portfolio. Since the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine by Russia, however, the defence industry has drawn significant investor interest. Notably, the perception has changed. That includes some of those who might have felt investing in defence was distasteful; they now see it as a needed buttress against rising authoritarianism. Of course, another shift is financial — based on the forecast injection of hundreds of billions of dollars in additional spending by NATO members. Pexels NATO members (including Canada) are forecast to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in additional annual spending in defence in the years to come. Canada alone is expected to increase military spending about $70 billion annually to meet its most recent defence commitment of five per cent of gross domestic product. The big question for many intrigued investors is whether they've already missed the warship. 'Our view is that type of information gets incorporated into market prices really quickly,' says Ben Felix, chief investment officer with PWL Capital in Ottawa. 'The implication of that is by the time you read about it in a Free Press article, any advantage that you may have got by investing in that theme is already gone.' That said, the defence industry landscape and recent performance are still of interest to inquisitive investors who might consider putting their money to work when prices pull back periodically. For the time being, however, many defence company share prices have hit lofty heights, including a handful of Canadian firms such as satellite technology company MDA Space Ltd. Its share price is up more than 50 per cent year to date. As well, aerospace company Bombardier's share price 'has almost doubled in recent months, so obviously, all of the talk that has been going on is certainly helping,' says Brian Donovan, New Brunswick-based president of provider of valuation models for investors. 'It tells you that there is an interest shift into this space.' StockCalc tracks performance of thousands of North American equities, including about eight Canadian firms with defence industry revenues. One even has a footprint in Winnipeg: Magellan Aerospace Corp., which makes components for military aircraft. Its share price is up more than 80 per cent YTD. If those gains sound lofty, consider some firms listed in the United States and Europe. Notably, artificial intelligence firm Palantir is up 106 per cent this year. Even more impressive, its share price is up nearly 1,600 per cent over the last five years. A key driver is its defence contracts with the U.S. and partnerships with other technology and manufacturing companies involved in defence. That includes L3 Harris Technology, which, like Palantir, operates in many industries. Its drone technology business is a big defence revenue driver. (That said, its share price growth YTD is much less than other defence stocks.) In Europe, the most notable defence growth story is manufacturing conglomerate Rheinmetall AG. Among the many defence technologies it manufactures are Challenger and Leopard tanks. Its share price is up about 200 per cent YTD, and more than 2,000 per cent in the last five years. The big driver is Germany planning to spend more than a trillion dollars on defence in the next five years. That investors are now turning onto the defence sector is understandable (given the headlines) and somewhat ironic at the same time because it has not been a lacklustre industry for long-term performance. Publicly traded companies involved in the U.S. defence industry have collectively provided returns on an annual basis that have outpaced the S&P 500, says Scott Sacknoff, manager of the SPADE Defense Index in Washington, D.C. 'There is a long history of defence outperforming.' And it very well could continue to outperform, given the U.S. defence budget is expected to surpass US$1 trillion annually for the first time in history, he adds. If anyone has deep knowledge of the defence sector, it's Sacknoff. The SPADE Index, which he manages, consists of leading U.S.-based defence companies and has outperformed the S&P 500 by roughly more than 1,000 basis points (or 100 percentage points) over the last 25 years. Yet until Russian President Vladimir Putin decided to invade Ukraine in 2022, defence was a profitable but sleepy market corner. The explosion in defence spending has changed that, leading to greater investment and even a rush of new investment products, notably exchange-traded funds (ETFs). Prior to 2022, investors largely had three ETFs to choose from, including one of the longest running: Invesco Aerospace & Defense ETF. For investors looking for exposure, the Invesco product is worth a look. Since launching in 2005, it has had steady growth. Investment data firm Morningstar data shows US$10,000 invested in 2005 would be worth nearly US$120,000 today. In turn, the ETF has Morningstar's highest rating. Sacknoff notes the ETF's performance is driven by the underlying SPADE index, which uses a modified market cap weighting to address the downsides of passive investing that lead to over-concentration in overvalued stocks. 'In simplest terms, this involves ensuring that large companies aren't too large, and small companies aren't too small.' He adds the index's annualized return over 15 years is 17 per cent. 'You have never lost money in any product tracking our index if you invested and held onto it for at least three years.' Yet one might ask, would that still hold true today? 'The big question is whether earnings and revenues will catch up to the high valuations,' Sacknoff says. Only time will tell. Yet not all companies on the index are surging in price, including Lockheed Martin, manufacturer of the F-35 fighter that Canada and other NATO countries have contracts to buy. Its share price is actually down slightly this year. Wednesdays A weekly dispatch from the head of the Free Press newsroom. What's more, U.S. President Donald Trump's scattershot economic policy is likely to lead to downside market volatility, presenting buying opportunities for defence companies. Yet their long-term tailwind is likely not going away soon. For the time being, however, this high-flying sector seems more of a minefield than a warpath to profitability. Joel Schlesinger is a Winnipeg-based freelance journalist joelschles@
Winnipeg Free Press
6 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
US-China trade talks: Can China reduce its export dependence?
BEIJING (AP) — China's high dependence on exports will likely be a key focus of a new round of U.S.-China trade talks this coming week in Stockholm, but a trade deal would not necessarily help Beijing to rebalance its economy. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said he hopes the negotiations can take up this issue, along with China's purchases of oil from Russia and Iran, which undercut American sanctions on those two countries. Hopes rose for a breakthrough in talks after U.S. President Donald Trump announced deals with Japan, Indonesia and the Philippines this week. The U.S. wants China to do two things: Reduce what both the U.S. and the European Union see as excess production capacity in many industries, including steel and electric vehicles. And secondly, to take steps to increase spending by Chinese consumers so the economy relies more on domestic demand and less on exports. 'We could also discuss the elephant in the room, which is this great rebalancing that the Chinese need to do,' Bessent told financial news network CNBC. He said China's share of global manufacturing exports at nearly 30%, 'can't get any bigger, and it should probably shrink.' China is tackling the same issues — for domestic reasons The issues are not new, and China has been working to address them for years, more for domestic reasons than to reduce its trade surpluses with the U.S. and other countries. Bessent's predecessor as treasury secretary, Janet Yellen, made industrial policy a focus of a trip to China last year. She blamed government subsidies for flooding the global market with 'artificially cheap Chinese products.' The European Union, whose top leaders met their Chinese counterparts in Beijing on Thursday, has cited subsidies to justify EU tariffs on electric vehicles made in China. In the 1980s, the U.S. pressured Japan to boost consumer spending when American manufacturing was overwhelmed by exports from the likes of Toyota and Sony. Economists have long argued that China likewise needs to transform into a more consumer-driven economy. Consumer spending accounts for less than 40% of China's economy, versus close to 70% in the United States and about 54% in Japan. Chinese leaders have spoken about both factory overcapacity and weak consumer spending as long-term problems and have sought over the past 20 years to find ways to rebalance the economy away from export manufacturing and massive investments in dams, roads, railways and other infrastructure. Fierce price wars have prompted critical reports in official media saying that companies are 'racing to the bottom,' skimping on quality and even safety to reduce costs. With strong government support, they've also expanded overseas, where they can charge higher prices but still undercut local competitors, creating a political backlash. Economists say China needs a consumer-driven economy All that competition and price cutting has left China battling deflation, or falling prices. When companies receive less for their products, they tend to invest less. That can lead to job cuts and lower wages, sapping business activity and spending power — contrary to the long-term goal of increasing the share of consumer spending in driving overall growth. To counter that, the government is spending billions on rebates and subsidies for people who trade in their cars or appliances for new ones. But acknowledging a problem and solving it are two different things. Economists say more fundamental changes are needed to boost consumption and rein in overcapacity. Such changes can only come incrementally over time. Private Chinese companies and foreign-invested companies create the most jobs, but they've suffered from swings in policy and pressures from the trade war, especially since the pandemic. Demographic changes are another challenge as China's population shrinks and ages. Many experts advocate expanding China's social safety net, health insurance, pensions and other support systems, so that people would feel freer to spend rather than save for a medical emergency or retirement. Yan Se, an economist at Peking University's Guanghua School of Management, warned at a recent forum that deflation will become a long-term issue if China doesn't step up its welfare benefits. 'Chinese people deserve a better life,' he said. Facing external threats, China wants to be more self-reliant One possibility, put forward at the same forum by Liu Qiao, the dean of the business school, would be to change incentives for local government officials, rewarding them for raising consumption or household incomes instead of meeting an economic growth target. He doesn't see that happening nationwide but said it could be tested in a province. 'That would send out a message that China needs a different approach,' he said. Chinese leader Xi Jinping has made transforming the country into a technology superpower a top priority. It's a goal that has gained urgency as the U.S. has tightened restrictions on China's access to high-end semiconductors and other advanced knowhow. Output in high-tech manufacturing is growing quickly, adding to potential overcapacity, just as what happened with the government's encouragement of 'green' technologies such as solar panels and wind turbines. Monday Mornings The latest local business news and a lookahead to the coming week. Various industries, including EV makers, have pledged to address the issue, but some local governments are striving to keep money-losing enterprises afloat, reluctant to lose tax revenues and jobs, or to fail to meet economic growth targets. Going forward, the government is calling for more coordination of economic development polices in fields such as artificial intelligence so that not every province champions the same industry. But government moves to counter the impact of higher tariffs tend to support sectors already in overcapacity, and the share of consumption in the economy has fallen in recent years. 'A sustained improvement in household consumption will require greater reform ambition,' the World Bank said in its most recent update on China's economy.' ___ AP Business Writer Elaine Kurtenbach in Bangkok contributed to this report.
Globe and Mail
10 hours ago
- Globe and Mail
Tesla Just Hit a Fork in the Road—Could the Bulls Lose Control?
Shares of had been grinding higher into Wednesday night's earnings, up nearly 15% over the past two weeks and more than 50% since April. That kind of run can easily put investors on edge, as they know a lot is going to be riding on the company's next earnings report. With Tesla's previous two earnings reports delivering big misses, Wall Street was hoping for a change of tone this time around. On paper, the electric vehicle (EV) giant delivered. Revenue still declined nearly 12% year-over-year, but not as badly as expected, and non-GAAP EPS came in at $0.40, which was solidly in the black. Deliveries were up compared to Q1, and margins also saw some improvement, reinforcing the view that Tesla may well be entering recovery mode after a rocky start to the year. But for now, at least, it doesn't look like this was enough. The Report Was Better, But Not Good Enough With the stock's price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio looking quite frothy around the 180 mark, Tesla would have known in advance that expectations were sky-high. Anything short of a beat-and-raise quarter was going to be a letdown, and that's exactly how the post-release price action looks to be playing out. Shares were down more than 6% ahead of Thursday's open, confirming investor sentiment is turning cautious, at least in the short term. It's a reminder of just how high the bar has become for Tesla, and how little margin for error there is right now. Even with improving fundamentals, the recent rally looks to have gotten a bit ahead of itself. There's Still a Bull Case Here However, for longer-term investors on the sidelines, this pullback could be the opportunity we've been waiting for. In between the headline numbers were plenty of reasons to stay bullish. CEO Elon Musk reiterated that plans for a lower-cost vehicle remain on track for the second half of 2025, while forecasting that the company's robotaxi rollout will reach half the U.S. population by the end of the year. That's a big claim, and one that reinforces the innovation engine still driving the Tesla story and makes bulls so excited. It also pays to remember that the company rallied nearly 70% after last quarter's miss, which was far worse than this one. If anything, Q2's report, while not spectacular, showed progress. And that should be enough to support the next leg of the uptrend once the dust settles. Analysts Still Back the Long Game Backing up the theory that this could be a buy-the-dip opportunity, earlier this week, the team over at Wedbush reiterated their Outperform rating and $500 price target on Tesla shares. Not only is this pointing to a targeted upside of some 50%, it also echoes the similarly bullish calls from the likes of Cantor Fitzgerald and Mizuho earlier this month. While Tesla remains one of the most hotly debated stocks on the market, there's no denying that many on Wall Street, who are still backing its longer-term prospects, will be licking their chops today. Yes, there are headwinds. Regulatory scrutiny, rising costs, and weak free cash flow all remain overhangs. But the roadmap is still intact, and the market tends to look forward, especially when a company with Tesla's brand power is showing signs of stabilizing. A Pullback, Then a Reset Still, with shares looking likely to fall after last night's earnings, a short-term correction is likely. A move back towards the $290 level would be a healthy test of support and could give the bulls room to regroup. This is still a stock to watch closely, and a sell-off doesn't mean the rally is over; just that it might be on pause. If investor sentiment can reset around Tesla's improving deliveries, growing margins, and product innovation, the stock could soon be up for another strong run through the rest of Q3. Where Should You Invest $1,000 Right Now? Before you make your next trade, you'll want to hear this. MarketBeat keeps track of Wall Street's top-rated and best performing research analysts and the stocks they recommend to their clients on a daily basis. Our team has identified the five stocks that top analysts are quietly whispering to their clients to buy now before the broader market catches on... and none of the big name stocks were on the list. They believe these five stocks are the five best companies for investors to buy now...
