One dead after single-car crash involving stolen vehicle early Friday morning
At about 12:13 a.m., a white 2019 Chevrolet Tahoe was traveling eastbound on Winchester Pike, approaching Bixby Road. The vehicle traveled off the south side of the roadway, slid into a field, then rolled, according to the Franklin County Sheriff's Office.
1970s fish and chips chain Arthur Treacher's to make central Ohio return
The driver was ejected from the vehicle, and found laying on the edge of the roadway. Medics pronounced the individual, who was the only occupant of the vehicle, dead at 12:17 a.m.
Law enforcement later discovered that the Tahoe was recently reported missing from the Canal Winchester area.
The sheriff's office is continuing to investigate the crash and asks anyone with information to contact their crash investigation unit at 614-525-6113.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
4 days ago
- Miami Herald
A Tesla killed a man in the Keys, and a Miami jury sent a $243 million message
On Aug. 1, 2025, a federal jury in Miami sent a resounding message — not only to Tesla, but to the entire automotive industry. In a landmark verdict, the jury awarded over $243 million in damages after finding Tesla partially liable for a 2019 crash in Key Largo that killed 22-year-old Naibel Benavides Leon and seriously injured her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo, now 33, both of Miami-Dade. We are the attorneys who brought the case against Tesla on behalf of Angulo and the Benavides family. Our case showed that the Tesla Model S that hit our clients had detected the couple's parked Chevrolet Tahoe directly in its path on Card Sound Road, yet failed to brake or even warn its driver before striking the Tahoe at high speed. This Miami case marked the first time a federal jury weighed in on a fatal crash involving Autopilot and a third party. While the driver admitted fault, the jury determined that Tesla's system — and how it was marketed — shared responsibility. The outcome should represent a turning point in how we approach vehicle automation, corporate accountability and public safety. The verdict sends several clear messages to Tesla and the industry at large: Branding carries consequences: Tesla marketed its driver-assist system as 'Autopilot,' a term that implies self-sufficiency and full autonomy. That choice, and numerous other misrepresentations of the system's capabilities made by Tesla CEO Elon Musk, created a false sense of security for Tesla customers. The jury recognized that words matter when they lead to behavioral risk. Marketing should follow engineering reality — not ambition. Withholding critical data is not acceptable: Tesla initially claimed that no data from the crash had been preserved. But our experts recovered video and performance logs showing the vehicle registered impending danger and did nothing. Jurors saw this as clear and convincing evidence that the car was defective. Technology does not absolve manufacturers of responsibility: Tesla's defense hinged on the driver's admitted distraction and carelessness. But the jury still found Tesla responsible for not building adequate safeguards into its system. A responsible automaker anticipates foreseeable misuse, and acts expeditiously to counter widespread misuse when it leads to injuries and fatalities. Punitive damages reflect societal concern: The $200 million in punitive damages is a signal that jurors believe Tesla needs to change. This level of award reflects the view that the company's approach to safety and disclosure failed a basic moral standard. When jurors respond with this level of force, they're speaking for more than the courtroom. Regulators and competitors are watching: We suspect this verdict will ripple far beyond one case in Miami. It invites deeper scrutiny from federal safety regulators and may prompt competing automakers to rethink their own driver-assist strategies. Future lawsuits will take a harder look at automation: Until now, many Autopilot-related cases were settled quietly or dismissed. This federal verdict sets a powerful precedent: juries are willing to hold tech companies accountable for systems that overpromise and underperform. The public expects more than innovation — it demands safety: Flashy tech, futuristic promises and rapid releases have long defined Tesla's brand. But this case reminded everyone that innovation without responsibility is dangerous. Companies must be honest about their limitations. Tesla is expected to appeal. Regardless, the message is out: 'Autopilot' isn't just a brand — it's a duty. And when that duty is breached, the consequences are both human and financial. The pain of that night will never be undone. But this verdict offers a path toward safer roads, better regulation and smarter technology. It is not a finish line, but it is a turning point — one that demands the auto industry match its innovation with accountability. Todd Poses, Adam Boumel and Doug Eaton are Miami attorneys who brought the case against Tesla on behalf of Dillon Angulo and the Benavides family.
Bloomberg
01-08-2025
- Bloomberg
Tesla Must Pay $243 Million Over Fatal Autopilot Crash
Tesla Inc. was told by a jury to pay $243 million over a 2019 Autopilot crash in Florida that killed a young woman and seriously injured her boyfriend, the first significant court loss for the automaker in litigation related to its driver-assistance technology. A jury in Miami federal court found Friday that Tesla was 33% to blame for the collision. A Tesla Model S ran a stop sign at a T intersection in the Florida Keys and rammed into the couple's parked Chevrolet Tahoe while they were standing next to it.
Business Insider
01-08-2025
- Business Insider
Tesla found partly to blame in trial over deadly Autopilot crash
In a major blow to Tesla, a Florida federal jury on Friday found Elon Musk's electric car company partly to blame for a 2019 crash that left a 22-year-old woman dead and her boyfriend seriously injured. The jury sided with the plaintiffs, awarding the family of Naibel Benavides Leon and her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo, a combined $329 million in total damages. The verdict marks a substantial setback for Tesla and its Autopilot driver-assistance feature that the attorneys for the plaintiffs said was engaged at the time of the deadly collision and had design flaws. It follows a three-week civil trial that included testimony from Angulo, Benavides Leon's family members, and the driver of the Tesla that plowed into a parked SUV and struck the couple as they were stargazing outside the vehicle alongside a Key Largo road. The case stems from a wrongful death lawsuit that the plaintiffs brought against Tesla. The lawsuit argued that the car maker's vehicles were "defective and unsafe for their intended use." Tesla, the lawsuit said, programmed Autopilot "to allow it to be used on roadways that Tesla knew were not suitable for its use and knew this would result in collisions causing injuries and deaths of innocent people who did not choose to be a part of Tesla's experiments, such as Plaintiffs." "Despite knowing of Autopilot's deficiencies, Tesla advertised Autopilot in a way that greatly exaggerated its capabilities and hid its deficiencies," said the lawsuit, which pointed to multiple comments from Musk touting the safety and reliability of the software. Tesla driver George McGee had Autopilot on when his 2019 Model S blew past a stop sign and a flashing red light at a three-way intersection and plowed into Angulo's mother's Chevrolet Tahoe at more than 60-miles-per-hour, the lawsuit said. McGee — who previously settled a separate lawsuit with the plaintiffs for an undisclosed amount — said he had dropped his cellphone during a call and bent down to pick it up moments before his Tesla, without warning, T-boned the Tahoe. He testified during the trial that he thought of Autopilot, which allows the vehicle to steer itself, switch lanes, brake, and accelerate on its own, a "copilot." "My concept was it would assist me should I have a failure" or "should I make a mistake," McGee said in testimony, adding, "I do feel like it failed me." "I believe it didn't warn me of the car and the individuals and nor did it apply brakes," McGee testified. Attorneys for Tesla have argued that McGee was solely responsible for the April 25, 2019, crash. In the trial's opening statements, Tesla attorney Joel Smith said the case was about a driver, not a "defective vehicle," and had "nothing to do with Autopilot." "It's about an aggressive driver, not a complacent driver, a distracted driver who was fumbling around for his cellphone," Smith said. "It's about a driver pressing an accelerator pedal and driving straight through an intersection." Tesla's attorneys said that just before the crash, McGee hit the accelerator, overriding the vehicle's set cruising speed of 45 miles per hour and its ability to brake on its own. Autopilot mode, Tesla says on its website, is "intended for use with a fully attentive driver, who has their hands on the wheel and is prepared to take over at any moment."
