logo
Tesla ordered by Florida jury to pay $414m in fatal Autopilot crash

Tesla ordered by Florida jury to pay $414m in fatal Autopilot crash

RNZ News2 days ago
By
Jonathan Stempel
and
Abhirup Roy
, Reuters
Photo:
Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto/Getty Images via CNN Newsource
A Florida jury has found Tesla liable to pay US$243 million (NZ$414m) to victims of a 2019 fatal crash of an Autopilot-equipped Model S, a verdict that could encourage more legal action against Elon Musk's electric vehicle company.
The Friday (local time) verdict is a rare win for victims of accidents involving Autopilot. Musk has been pushing to rapidly expand Tesla's recently launched robotaxi business based on an advanced version of its driver assistance software.
Tesla shares fell 1.8 percent on Friday and are down 25 percent this year.
Jurors in Miami federal court awarded the estate of Naibel Benavides Leon, as well as her former boyfriend Dillon Angulo, $129m in compensatory damages plus $200m in punitive damages, according to a verdict sheet.
Tesla was held liable for 33 percent of the compensatory damages, or $42.6m.
Jurors found the driver, George McGee, liable for 67 percent, but he was not a defendant and will not have to pay his share.
"Tesla designed Autopilot only for controlled-access highways yet deliberately chose not to restrict drivers from using it elsewhere, alongside Elon Musk telling the world Autopilot drove better than humans," Brett Schreiber, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a statement.
"Today's verdict represents justice for Naibel's tragic death and Dillon's lifelong injuries," he added.
Tesla said it will appeal.
"Today's verdict is wrong 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," the company said.
The plaintiffs had sought $345m in damages. Their lawyers said the trial was the first involving the wrongful death of a third party resulting from Autopilot.
Tesla has faced many
similar lawsuits
over its vehicles' self-driving capabilities, but they have been resolved or dismissed without going to trial.
In June, a judge rejected Tesla's bid to dismiss the Florida case. Experts said Friday's verdict may spur more lawsuits and could make future settlements more costly.
"It's a big deal," said Alex Lemann, a law professor at Marquette University.
"This is the first time that Tesla has been hit with a judgment in one of the many, many fatalities that have happened as a result of its Autopilot technology."
The verdict could also impede efforts by Musk, the world's richest person, to convince investors that Tesla can
become a leader in so-called autonomous driving
for private vehicles as well as robotaxis it plans to start producing next year.
As Tesla's electric vehicle sales fall, much of its nearly $1 trillion market value hinges on Musk's ability to pivot the company into robotics and artificial intelligence.
The trial concerned a 25 April 2019 incident where George McGee drove his 2019 Model S at about 100kmh through an intersection into the victims' parked Chevrolet Tahoe as they were standing beside it on a shoulder.
McGee had reached down to pick up a cellphone he dropped on his car's floorboard and allegedly received no alerts as he ran a stop sign and stop light before hitting the victims' SUV.
Benavides Leon was allegedly thrown 23m to her death, while Angulo suffered serious injuries.
"We have a driver who was acting less than perfectly, and yet the jury still found Tesla contributed to the crash," said Philip Koopman, a Carnegie Mellon University engineering professor and expert in autonomous technology.
"The only way the jury could have possibly ruled against Tesla was by finding a defect with the Autopilot software," he added.
"That's a big deal."
Tesla, in its statement, said McGee was entirely at fault.
"To be clear, no car in 2019, and none today, would have prevented this crash," the company said.
"This was never about Autopilot; it was a fiction concocted by plaintiffs' lawyers blaming the car when the driver, from day one, admitted and accepted responsibility."
- Reuters
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

India will continue to buy Russian oil, government sources say
India will continue to buy Russian oil, government sources say

RNZ News

timea day ago

  • RNZ News

India will continue to buy Russian oil, government sources say

By Shivam Patel and Chandni Shah US President Donald Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrive to hold a joint press conference in the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC, on 13 February, 2025. Photo: AFP India will keep purchasing oil from Russia despite US President Donald Trump's threats of penalties , two Indian government sources said, not wishing to be identified due to the sensitivity of the matter. "These are long-term oil contracts," one of the sources said. "It is not so simple to just stop buying overnight." Trump last month indicated in a Truth Social post that India would face additional penalties for purchases of Russian arms and oil. On Friday, Trump told reporters that he had heard that India would no longer be buying oil from Russia. The New York Times on Saturday (local time) quoted two unnamed senior Indian officials as saying there had been no change in Indian government policy, with one official saying the government had "not given any direction to oil companies" to cut back imports from Russia. Reuters reported this week that Indian state refiners stopped buying Russian oil in the past week after discounts narrowed in July. "On our energy sourcing requirements ... we look at what is there available in the markets, what is there on offer, and also what is the prevailing global situation or circumstances," India's foreign ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal told reporters during a regular briefing on Friday. Jaiswal added that India has a "steady and time-tested partnership" with Russia, and that New Delhi's relations with various countries stand on their own merit and should not be seen from the prism of a third country. The White House in Washington did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Indian refiners are pulling back from Russian crude as discounts shrink to their lowest since 2022, when Western sanctions were first imposed on Moscow, due to lower Russian exports and steady demand, sources said earlier this week. The country's state refiners - Indian Oil Corp, Hindustan Petroleum Corp, Bharat Petroleum Corp and Mangalore Refinery Petrochemical Ltd - have not sought Russian crude in the past week or so, four sources familiar with the refiners' purchase plans told Reuters. On 14 July, Trump threatened 100 percent tariffs on countries that buy Russian oil unless Moscow reaches a major peace deal with Ukraine. Russia is the top supplier to India, responsible for about 35 percent of India's overall supplies. Russia continued to be the top oil supplier to India during the first six months of 2025, accounting for about 35 percent of India's overall supplies, followed by Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. India, the world's third-largest oil importer and consumer, received about 1.75 million barrels per day of Russian oil in January-June this year, up 1 percent from a year ago, according to data provided to Reuters by sources. Nayara Energy, a major buyer of Russian oil, was recently sanctioned by the European Union as the refinery is majority-owned by Russian entities, including oil major Rosneft. Last month, Reuters reported that Nayara's chief executive had resigned after the imposition of EU sanctions and company veteran Sergey Denisov had been appointed as CEO. Three vessels laden with oil products from Nayara Energy have yet to discharge their cargoes, hindered by the new EU sanctions on the Russia-backed refiner, Reuters reported late last month. - Reuters

UK defends new online safety law after criticism
UK defends new online safety law after criticism

RNZ News

timea day ago

  • RNZ News

UK defends new online safety law after criticism

Under the new UK law, online platforms must take steps to prevent children accessing harmful content. Photo: 123RF The UK government on Saturday defended a new online safety law following harsh criticism from social network X, saying it was "demonstrably false" that it "compromises free speech". Under the law, which took effect on 25 July, online platforms must take steps to prevent children accessing harmful content such as pornography. But X said Friday that "the act's laudable intentions are at risk of being overshadowed by the breadth of its regulatory reach". "Without a more balanced, collaborative approach, free speech will suffer," added the platform, formerly known as Twitter, saying regulators had taken a "heavy-handed approach". "When lawmakers approved these measures, they made a conscientious decision to increase censorship in the name of 'online safety'," added the platform, owned by billionaire Elon Musk. The government countered that it was "demonstrably false that the Online Safety Act compromises free speech". "As well as legal duties to keep children safe, the very same law places clear and unequivocal duties on platforms to protect freedom of expression," said a spokesperson. The law "does not require platforms to age gate any content other than those which present the most serious risks to children such as pornography or suicide and self-harm content", said the government, adding "platforms have had several months to prepare". In the event of non-compliance, platforms are liable to fines of up to £18 million (NZ$40m), or 10 percent of their global turnover, whichever is higher. - AFP

Tesla ordered by Florida jury to pay $414m in fatal Autopilot crash
Tesla ordered by Florida jury to pay $414m in fatal Autopilot crash

RNZ News

time2 days ago

  • RNZ News

Tesla ordered by Florida jury to pay $414m in fatal Autopilot crash

By Jonathan Stempel and Abhirup Roy , Reuters Photo: Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto/Getty Images via CNN Newsource A Florida jury has found Tesla liable to pay US$243 million (NZ$414m) to victims of a 2019 fatal crash of an Autopilot-equipped Model S, a verdict that could encourage more legal action against Elon Musk's electric vehicle company. The Friday (local time) verdict is a rare win for victims of accidents involving Autopilot. Musk has been pushing to rapidly expand Tesla's recently launched robotaxi business based on an advanced version of its driver assistance software. Tesla shares fell 1.8 percent on Friday and are down 25 percent this year. Jurors in Miami federal court awarded the estate of Naibel Benavides Leon, as well as her former boyfriend Dillon Angulo, $129m in compensatory damages plus $200m in punitive damages, according to a verdict sheet. Tesla was held liable for 33 percent of the compensatory damages, or $42.6m. Jurors found the driver, George McGee, liable for 67 percent, but he was not a defendant and will not have to pay his share. "Tesla designed Autopilot only for controlled-access highways yet deliberately chose not to restrict drivers from using it elsewhere, alongside Elon Musk telling the world Autopilot drove better than humans," Brett Schreiber, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a statement. "Today's verdict represents justice for Naibel's tragic death and Dillon's lifelong injuries," he added. Tesla said it will appeal. "Today's verdict is wrong 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," the company said. The plaintiffs had sought $345m in damages. Their lawyers said the trial was the first involving the wrongful death of a third party resulting from Autopilot. Tesla has faced many similar lawsuits over its vehicles' self-driving capabilities, but they have been resolved or dismissed without going to trial. In June, a judge rejected Tesla's bid to dismiss the Florida case. Experts said Friday's verdict may spur more lawsuits and could make future settlements more costly. "It's a big deal," said Alex Lemann, a law professor at Marquette University. "This is the first time that Tesla has been hit with a judgment in one of the many, many fatalities that have happened as a result of its Autopilot technology." The verdict could also impede efforts by Musk, the world's richest person, to convince investors that Tesla can become a leader in so-called autonomous driving for private vehicles as well as robotaxis it plans to start producing next year. As Tesla's electric vehicle sales fall, much of its nearly $1 trillion market value hinges on Musk's ability to pivot the company into robotics and artificial intelligence. The trial concerned a 25 April 2019 incident where George McGee drove his 2019 Model S at about 100kmh through an intersection into the victims' parked Chevrolet Tahoe as they were standing beside it on a shoulder. McGee had reached down to pick up a cellphone he dropped on his car's floorboard and allegedly received no alerts as he ran a stop sign and stop light before hitting the victims' SUV. Benavides Leon was allegedly thrown 23m to her death, while Angulo suffered serious injuries. "We have a driver who was acting less than perfectly, and yet the jury still found Tesla contributed to the crash," said Philip Koopman, a Carnegie Mellon University engineering professor and expert in autonomous technology. "The only way the jury could have possibly ruled against Tesla was by finding a defect with the Autopilot software," he added. "That's a big deal." Tesla, in its statement, said McGee was entirely at fault. "To be clear, no car in 2019, and none today, would have prevented this crash," the company said. "This was never about Autopilot; it was a fiction concocted by plaintiffs' lawyers blaming the car when the driver, from day one, admitted and accepted responsibility." - Reuters

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store