Jury awards over $240 million in damages against Tesla in Autopilot crash lawsuit
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 defense 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 liability despite a driver's admission of reckless behavior would pose significant legal risks for every company as they develop cars that increasingly drive themselves.
(FRANCE 24 with AP)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
C-suite access is the new divide in the hedge fund world
Corporate access has become the latest institutional shift for the largest hedge funds in the industry. The biggest firms have teams of people handling their relationships with companies and get the most access. Citadel, for example, does more than 30,000 meetings with executives a year. You can't buy time, but hedge funds are trying. Some of the most valuable time in the world is that of a CEO of a large public company like Jamie Dimon or Mark Zuckerberg, whose days are planned to the millisecond. They carve out time to speak to their companies' investors about strategy, expectations, and more, and it's those seconds that the biggest hedge funds in the world are increasingly monopolizing. Multistrategy giants like Izzy Englander's Millennium, Ken Griffin's Citadel, Steve Cohen's Point72, and Dmitry Balyasny's eponymous firm operate with dozens — sometimes hundreds — of investment teams under one roof, each running their own strategy. These firms' stock-picking teams compete with each other and rivals for face time with leaders at the world's biggest companies. In conversations with 15 portfolio managers, hedge fund executives, bankers, corporate access professionals, and investor relations heads, Business Insider found that access to C-suites — once a more level playing field — has become another area where the biggest firms dominate. The process is now a source of growing tension as smaller investment firms get edged out, companies are flooded with requests, and even top firms grapple with internal strains over who gets into the boardroom. A decade ago, the connection between these firms and corporations was run solely through brokers working at investment banks, also known as the sell-side. Now, while the sell-side has not been cut out of the equation, the biggest hedge funds employ large teams of corporate access pros themselves, with personnel based in the US, Europe, and Asia helping mega funds get their ever-growing investing team members face time with CEOs. Citadel boasts on its website that it does more than 30,000 meetings with corporate executives each year. Millennium's increasing allocation to externally run funds means more wallets to pay the sell-side, ensuring better access and preferential treatment from brokers. Balyasny has done educational events for corporate investor relations teams in Asia, India, and the US in the last 12 months to explain the firm's structure and introduce its broker relations leaders. Funds mentioned in this story declined to comment. "A big part of the job is keeping everyone happy," said one hedge fund executive who has managed stock-picking teams for more than a decade. 'Kids' table' Twenty-seven-year-olds in T-shirts. Cameras off during pandemic-era Zooms. Typing on laptops or phones while CEOs spoke. Twenty people on a call, all vying to ask a hyperspecific question, often related to next quarter's earnings. Companies, especially the largest ones with the busiest executives, were getting frustrated as the headcounts of the industry's elite swelled, according to two corporate investor relations executives. At bank-held conferences, alongside tenured portfolio managers from long-only funds and asset management giants like Fidelity and Wellington, "we were always the kids' table," one multistrategy executive admitted. It was "pretty common" between 2018 and 2021 for executives to say no to meeting with some of these firms, or sharply curtailing the number of seats allotted to these funds, said Christopher Melito, a former corporate access pro at Cowen, Citi, and Credit Suisse. Even with how much these firms paid the sell-side, "at the end of the day, a C-suite could say 'don't confirm that request, we aren't meeting with them,'" said Melito, who is now the head of investor access at consulting firm ICR. Though the industry started building corporate access teams as early as 2015, it took years for teams to get to their current efficiency. One early hire industry experts pointed to was when Citadel promoted Johnna Shields to the role of corporate relations manager within its Global Equities stockpicking unit. Now, these staffers play a critical role in smoothing the path for hedge funds, which aren't always trusted by CEOs who worry about potential short-sellers and capital that'll leave at the first sign of trouble. Similar to the growing importance of the business development role, those in corporate access have become a key cog within multistrategy firms, despite the fact that they don't manage capital themselves. Jain Global, for example, brought on Katie Vogt, a former Balyasny and Goldman Sachs staffer, to head its corporate access efforts, deeming the function important enough to hire someone pre-launch. There's now a much healthier two-way street between funds and corporates. For example, "a lot of top four funds stopped putting junior members in these meetings," Melito said, and started training younger investment team members on protocol. One former PM said that at Point72, blazers are required when meeting with an executive. At other large firms, Melito said, young analysts start by meeting with smaller-cap companies before shadowing more senior investors in meetings with large-cap corporations. Corporate access teams have shifted from booking agents to matchmakers, one person close to a big four fund said, pairing different teams and investors with the right executives. "The large four funds have been a lot more strategic about their asks," Melito said. Everything's political Although the relationships between funds and companies may be solid, there is still plenty of bickering internally at the asset managers. One portfolio manager at a large firm said the biggest fights he ever saw were between two teams wanting access to the same executive — and there would only be room for one. Firms often give more tenured teams the right of first refusal for a meeting, but sometimes big-name new hires will jump the line, causing a rift, another PM said. All jobs have an element of internal politics to them, but in the cutthroat hedge-fund world, where a right call could mean a life-changing annual bonus and a wrong call could mean a pink slip, the stakes are magnified. The growing staff at the biggest managers means that a potential meeting with a Fortune 500 CEO will have plenty of interested parties. At Citadel alone, there are roughly 300 stockpickers, Griffin said at a talk at his former high school in Florida earlier this year. While the biggest funds can offer eye-popping sign-on bonuses and larger books of capital to manage, smaller funds that haven't been able to keep up with the big boys on corporate access resources are leveraging the internal tiffs to help their recruiting. "We can say 'You're our tech guy,' and while we can't compete on upfront guarantees, we can give them better long-term incentives," said one individual who runs a smaller multistrategy firm. These incentives include automatic IPO distributions, he said, which can be hard to come by if you're lower down the totem pole in one of the bigger firms. In the ongoing war for talent that has top moneymakers getting offers of tens of millions of dollars in total potential compensation, an important question for candidates is how many other teams trade their specialty or sector, one recruiter said. "It's a make-or-break kind of question," he said. No one wants to be one of 20 investing in technology companies "unless the money's just stupid," he added. Is it 'something AI could do' or a differentiator? The reason these firms have been able to build up these teams and pay out such large commissions to the Street is because of the pass-through fee agreements that put their backers on the hook for business costs. The question limited partners need to ask: Is it worth it? Several PMs at firms with large corporate access teams told Business Insider they could do without. One European equity investor said CEOs have become more scripted than ever, so meetings are basically a rerun of what they've previously said on earnings calls or at conferences. Another, based in the US, said the biggest value from these meetings used to be a sentiment check on how other teams were thinking about the stock — but now questions are often too specific and narrow to give any kind of indication into their thinking. For one founder of a smaller activism fund, the meetings are a prime example of something that firms could eventually save money on by automating away. "All these young analysts are asking questions off a sheet of paper their PM gave them and then typing into their models right there," the activist said. "It's something AI could do." It's hard to quantify how much a 30-minute conversation with a CFO is worth to a fund's bottom line. One industry consultant believes the push for funds to adopt cash hurdles — which would require their net returns to be over that of a Treasury bond to earn performance fees — might lead to some firms cutting costs in different places, including payments to the sell-side. Still, longtime stockpickers appreciate time with executives, and the old guard believes there's value in it. Tiger Global's billionaire founder, Chase Coleman, sees merit in these meetings and still attends them, a person close to the firm said, and funds have brought in former CIA interrogators to help investors dissect body language and read between the lines of a prepared statement. Even beyond the informational advantages mega funds can glean from these meetings, corporate access is also a zero-sum game. The more meeting slots and conference registrations the industry's largest firms take up, the fewer everyone else can get. "It's a finite resource," said one sell-side broker. "They don't want to share." Read the original article on Business Insider Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Cincinnati Beating Victim Breaks Silence, Reveals 'Very Bad Brain Trauma' After Viral Attack
In a recent video, the woman, identified as Holly, thanked 'everyone for all of the love and support'NEED TO KNOW The Ohio woman who was badly beaten during a street brawl in Cincinnati said she still has a 'very bad brain trauma" Videos of the large fight went viral and at least four people have been arrested in connection with the July 26 incident "I'm still recovering," she saidAn Ohio woman, who was badly beaten during a street brawl, is now speaking out. In a recent video, the woman, identified as Holly, thanked 'everyone for all of the love and support.' Holly revealed that she still has a 'very bad brain trauma.' 'I'm still recovering,' she said in the video obtained with her permission by WLWT. 'It is very humbling that you have sent your prayers, your blessings,' she said. 'It's definitely what's keeping me going, and you have just brought back faith in humanity." Videos of the large fight on July 26 went viral and at least four people have been arrested in connection with the incident. "Let me be clear, there is no place for violent crime in Cincinnati, whether it's fight or gun violence, we will pursue those responsible and we will hold them accountable no matter who they are, period," Cincinnati Mayor Aftab Pureval said at a Friday news conference, per Fox News. The single mother told the Cincinnati Enquirer that she suffered severe head trauma and a concussion and had gone to the hospital multiple times after she was attacked at the brawl in downtown Cincinnati. Want to keep up with the latest crime coverage? Sign up for for breaking crime news, ongoing trial coverage and details of intriguing unsolved cases. On the night of the attack, Holly said she was out celebrating a friend's birthday. 'We were waiting on our Uber outside and that's when it all started," she said, per the Enquirer. A GiveSendGo fundraiser for Holly has so far raised more than $350,000. Read the original article on People
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Democrats Schumer, Jeffries demand meeting with GOP to avert government shutdown
Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries Monday called on their Republican counterparts to meet immediately to avert a government shutdown looming as soon as the end of next month. The Democratic congressional leaders, both of whom are from New York, called on Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-South Dakota, and Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, to sit down this week to discuss a plan to pass next year's budget, which would normally require negotiation with the minority party to secure the 60 votes needed in the Senate to avoid a filibuster. 'We have the responsibility to govern for all Americans and work on a bipartisan basis to avert a painful, unnecessary shutdown at the end of September,' Schumer and Jeffries wrote. The Democratic leaders noted they are willing to work with Republicans on a bipartisan basis to negotiate a budget deal that would keep the government open past Sept. 30. But they accused President Donald Trump and GOP leaders of plotting to govern without any input from Democrats and shut down the government if they don't get their way. 'Many within your party are preparing to 'go it alone' and continue to legislate on a solely Republican basis,' the Democratic leaders wrote. Government funding will expire Sept. 30. Lawmakers say to prevent a shutdown Congress will likely need to pass a stopgap funding measure when lawmakers return to Washington, D.C., after Labor Day. In exchange for their cooperation in passing new budget measures, Democrats want Republicans to agree not to turn around later in the year and pass a rescissions package cutting some of that same funding. Republicans recently voted to claw back $9 billion in previously appropriated funding and defunded the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, taking advantage of the legislative loophole that rescissions only require a simple majority in the Senate, not a 60-vote bipartisan supermajority. Schumer and Jeffries are also pressing for the administration to release funding it has unilaterally held up even though it was allocated by Congress last year. Republicans have suggested they may seek to pass one or more policy bills before the midterm elections using the arcane reconciliation process, like they successfully did with Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill. That measure, which polls say is very unpopular with voters, enacted draconian cuts to health care spending to bankroll tax cuts for the wealthy and big corporations. _____
