Miami jury finds Tesla partly liable in Autopilot crash
The jury awarded the plaintiffs $200 million in punitive damages, plus compensatory damages for pain and suffering.
The verdict is a blow for Tesla and CEO Elon Musk as they try to convince the public, government regulators and investors that their self-driving software is safe.
The eight-person jury said that Tesla was partly to blame for the crash in the Florida Keys six years ago, when neither the driver of the Tesla sedan nor the Autopilot software braked in time for an intersection. The jury assigned Tesla one-third of the blame and assigned two-thirds to the driver, who was sued separately.
The verdict follows a three-week trial in Miami that threw a spotlight on how Tesla and Musk have marketed their driver-assistance software, which despite its name requires constant oversight by a human in the driver's seat.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued Tesla oversold the capabilities of Autopilot, leading the driver of a Model S sedan to take his eyes off the road as he approached a T-intersection in the Florida Keys after sundown. The Tesla failed to stop at the intersection and slammed into a parked SUV, killing 20-year-old Naibel Benavides Leon as she was standing next to the SUV and injuring her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo. The Tesla was traveling at 62 miles per hour just before the crash, according to data cited at trial.
Benavides Leon's family and Angulo sued the driver and also Tesla, arguing that its Autopilot software should have warned the driver and braked before the vehicle crashed.
Jurors deliberated for seven hours Thursday afternoon and Friday before informing the judge they had reached a verdict.
Most wrongful death lawsuits settle or are dismissed, but their lawsuit went to trial as a major public test of Tesla's safety record. Tesla argued that the driver of the Model S was solely responsible for the crash because he was reaching for a dropped cell phone when it happened.
The driver, George McGee, testified during the trial he believed Autopilot failed him.
'My concept was it would assist me should I have a failure or should I miss something, should I make a mistake — that the car would be able to help me. And in that case, I do feel like it failed me,' he said.
The plaintiffs sued McGee separately, and that case was settled.
Autopilot comes standard on all Tesla vehicles and is a package of several driver-assistance features. Tesla warns drivers in its online owner's manual that Autopilot requires supervision and does not make its vehicles fully autonomous.
But the plaintiffs said Tesla lulled drivers into a false sense of security, causing drivers to become distracted.
The plaintiffs asked for $109 million in compensatory damages from Tesla and $236 million in punitive damages.
Tesla and Musk have for years touted Autopilot and another package of driver-assistance software, Full Self-Driving, as major steps forward in automobile safety. Musk has said that Tesla cars using the software are safer than human drivers, and he has bet the future of the company on developing a fleet of safe, autonomous taxis.
But federal regulators and their counterparts in California have for years questioned the safety of Tesla's systems. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration last year said there was a ' critical safety gap ' in Autopilot that contributed to at least 467 collisions, including 13 crashes resulting in fatalities.
Brett Schreiber, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, blamed Musk individually in his closing summary to the jury Thursday.
'It is Tesla's CEO who created an expectation among consumers that Autopilot can perform beyond its limitations,' he said.
He also said Tesla's driver-assistance technology was unproven but that the company hyped it anyway.
'We are here because Dillon Angulo and Neima Benavides were part of a beta test they never signed up for,' he said.
Joel Smith, a lawyer for Tesla, told the jury in his closing summary that the driver of the Model S, not the vehicle software, was to blame for the crash.
'Can it happen in any car? Of course it can. Does it happen in any car? Of course it does,' he said.
Smith told jurors that McGee had traveled safely through the same intersection 30 to 40 times previously, without incident.
'The only thing that changed was the driver's behavior,' he said.
Musk did not appear in the Miami federal courtroom during the three-week trial, though his name came up including during the jury selection process.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
DOGE continues to say it's slashing costs but cuts are fraction of what's claimed, CBS News analysis finds
The spotlight may have moved off the Department of Government Efficiency since the departure of Elon Musk, but the Trump administration's DOGE continues to post about cost cutting on its so-called "wall of receipts." And once again, some of its claims about savings appear to be significantly overstated, according to a CBS News review. The review of three of the largest cuts claimed so far indicates the savings from those contracts are less than 3% of what DOGE said they were. On July 27, DOGE added 705 canceled contracts to the website it uses to track and declare savings from the agency's cost cutting across the federal government, among them three of the largest claimed cuts posted since President Trump launched DOGE in January. The three contracts — all from the Department of Health and Human Services — funded COVID-19 testing and treatment for people who were uninsured or underinsured during the pandemic. DOGE claims canceling those contracts saved $6.4 billion. But CBS News' review of transaction records indicates the actual savings is just a small fraction of that — around $165 million. That's about how much in obligated funds were left unspent in the three contracts by the time Mr. Trump took office and DOGE was launched. There was nearly $7 billion that remained, but this figure represented a ceiling that federal contracting experts say is rarely reached. DOGE adjusted down that total potential value by a combined $6.4 billion — and then reported it as savings. But with the pandemic long over and the contracts set to expire on May 31 of this year, it is highly unlikely the contractors, which included Walgreens and CVS, would have spent anywhere near that sum on COVID-19 testing and treatment. The spending "was never going to reach this number," said Nat Malkus, a senior fellow at the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute, referring to the total potential value. "You didn't have to terminate this contract, you are the government — just don't obligate any more money." Since it was launched, multiple news outlets including CBS News have reported that DOGE's "Wall of Receipts" has at times vastly overstated the amount of funds cut and discovered numerous errors in the group's accounting. DOGE now claims it has saved $52.2 billion – just from contracts canceled. Malkus, who analyzed the actual implications of the cancellations rather than the ceiling values, puts the number closer to $17.8 billion. But that would only be if Congress agreed to rescind the funds that it had already voted to spend. The DOGE website reports a grand total of $199 billion saved, when factoring in real estate lease cancellations and other cuts such as personnel reductions. However, it provides no documentation for roughly half of that amount. According to DOGE, the savings equate to $1,236.02 per person in the U.S. "The amount they have per person is fiction," Malkus said. "It's transparency theater." HHS did not respond to a CBS News request for comment about the three contracts. The White House redirected the request to the General Services Administration, which declined to comment. A substantial portion of those purported savings is a result of cuts to USAID. A recent study in the medical journal The Lancet says those cuts could come with a human toll. By the study's estimates, the loss in humanitarian aid could lead to 14 million deaths in children younger than 5 years of age by 2030. Malkus told CBS News, "Their claims are generally to say, 'Hey this is a lot of pain, but it's worth it.'" The update is only the second since Musk, who launched DOGE, departed from his role in the White House advising Mr. Trump. Shortly before Musk's term as a special government employee expired, he told reporters, "This is not the end of DOGE, but really the beginning." "The DOGE team will only grow stronger over time. The DOGE influence will only grow stronger," he said from the Oval Office on May 30, adding that he was confident over time DOGE would cull $1 trillion in savings. It's unclear exactly how DOGE has functioned since then. In late June, The Washington Post reported that federal officials were instructed to stop routing the grant-making process through DOGE, revoking control of the online clearinghouse for all grant opportunities from the group. In DOGE's latest update, only one additional canceled grant was added. Several DOGE-associated government employees have left in recent weeks, including the Department of the Interior's Tyler Hassen, whose last day was Friday, The New York Times reported. Hassen was originally hired as a DOGE staffer, and then was later tasked with trimming costs at the Interior Department, where he was named principal deputy assistant secretary of the interior. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum had allowed him broad authority to make cuts to budgets and staffing, and under his watch, a DOGE-associated employee made the claim that a single survey costing $1 billion dollars had been cut. That claim was repeated by Elon Musk and Burgum, but no evidence was ever supplied to back it up.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Musk's new pay package removes overhang for Tesla stock: Wedbush's Ives
-- According to Wedbush analyst Dan Ives in a note Monday, Tesla's new pay package for CEO Elon Musk eliminates a major uncertainty for the stock and sets the stage for long-term stability. In a note published after Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) filed an 8-K this morning, Wedbush called the Board's approval of a 96 million share restricted stock grant 'a strategic move' that will help retain Musk as Tesla's CEO through at least 2030. The award, recommended by a special committee of disinterested directors, comes under the 2019 Equity Incentive Plan and is equivalent to roughly one-third of the compensation earned under Musk's 2018 plan. 'This grant will now keep Musk as CEO of Tesla at least until 2030 and removes an overhang on the stock,' Wedbush said. 'Musk remains Tesla's big asset and this comp issue has been a constant concern of shareholders once the Delaware soap opera began.' According to Wedbush, Musk must pay Tesla $23.34 per share of restricted stock that vests, the same as the 2018 CEO Award's exercise price. The grant has an accounting fair value of about $23.7 billion. Wedbush said the package aligns with the firm's early July recommendation that Tesla's board 'step in to ensure Musk would commit to Tesla over the next few years.' 'With the AI talent war now fully underway across Big Tech, we believe this was a strategic move to keep TSLA's top asset,' Wedbush wrote. 'This framework for Musk's pay package and greater voting control removes a major overhang on the story.' Wedbush reiterated its Outperform rating and $500 price target on Tesla. Related articles Musk's new pay package removes overhang for Tesla stock: Wedbush's Ives Apollo economist warns: AI bubble now bigger than 1990s tech mania 7 Undervalued Stocks on the Rise With 50%+ Upside Potential Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Tesla gives Musk $29B to keep his 'energies focused'
The News Tesla is giving Elon Musk $29 billion in stock to keep his 'energies focused' on the carmaker rather than his sprawling space, AI, and brain-science empire — plus his ambitions to remain a player in US politics after his high-profile split with President Donald Trump. The last time Tesla tried to reward and incentivize Musk, a $56 billion pay package granted in 2018 tied to revenue and market-capitalization milestones was twice nixed by a Delaware court, which ruled the company had fudged its disclosures to shareholders. The company is appealing to the Delaware Supreme Court to reinstate that package and if it's successful, Monday's grant would disappear. There is considerable, but quiet political pressure in Delaware for the case, which sparked Tesla and a number of tech companies to move their legal homes out of the state, to be overturned. The grant announced Monday is a placeholder, worth about one-third of what Musk would currently be owed under the 2018 package. It has a simpler theory of the case: Don't worry about the metrics; keeping Musk around will be good for stockholders. Tesla shares rose in line with the broader market. 'Retaining Elon is more important than ever,' special committee members Robyn Denholm and Kathleen Wilson-Thompson wrote in a letter to investors, which also confirmed Tesla's new vision of being less a car company than a laboratory for Musk's other interests. 'Tesla is transitioning from its role as a leader in the electric vehicle and renewable energy industries to grow towards becoming a leader in AI, robotics and related services,' they wrote. The package would give Musk roughly 16% voting control of Tesla as fully vested, and requires him to stay for just two years — but not necessarily as CEO. With board approval, Musk could leave the top job and take a role at the automaker focused on developing new products, while keeping the More The grant is contingent on antitrust approvals from Washington because it would increase Musk's already significant control over the company. Such clauses are relatively rare; fewer than 10 CEOs received grants large enough to trigger an antitrust review, according to Steven Eckhaus, an executive-compensation attorney at Harris St. Laurent & Wechsler. That will force the billionaire to stay out of the crosshairs of the Trump administration, which has been wielding its antitrust authority in unpredictable and politically motivated ways. Antitrust approvals for CEO grants are 'usually rubber-stamp situations,' Eckhaus said. 'But Mr. Musk needs to stay in sync with the regulators … which will require a significant amount of disclosure.' Concerns grew earlier this year among Tesla investors that Musk's political activities were distracting him from the company. Though he has since left the White House, his time there appears to have damaged Tesla's brand — first among self-described liberals who didn't like his association with Trump, and later among conservatives after the pair's public falling-out. Both those problems have played out against a deteriorating backdrop for Tesla: EV subsidies being phased out, an aging product lineup, and a robotaxi launch that, while well-reviewed, faces competition from Waymo and others with a head start. Weakness in global markets — Tesla sales in Europe and China have slumped, the latter under pressure from cheaper domestic cars — have weighed on the stock. Notable The Delaware corporate exodus sparked by the decision isn't slowing down much: a16z encouraged its portfolio companies to decamp less than a month ago. Musk's $30 billion grant is 15 times larger than the initial value of his 2012 package, and dwarfs the annual pay packages of the 10 top-paid CEOs. Tesla — and Musk — are less valuable to Beijing than they previously were, a Wall Street Journal report found. Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Melden Sie sich an, um Ihr Portfolio aufzurufen. Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten
