Latest news with #Autopilot-equipped
Time of India
05-08-2025
- Automotive
- Time of India
Autopilot verdict deals Tesla a 'black eye', threatens Musk's robotaxi ambitions
A court verdict against Tesla last week, stemming from a fatal 2019 crash of an Autopilot-equipped Model S, could hurt its plans to expand its nascent robotaxi network and intensify concerns over the safety of its autonomous vehicle technology. A Florida jury ordered Musk's electric vehicle company on Friday to pay about $243 million to victims of the crash, finding its Autopilot driver-assistance software defective. Tesla said the driver was solely at fault and vowed to appeal. The verdict follows years of federal investigations and recalls related to collisions involving Tesla's autonomous-vehicle technology, and comes as CEO Elon Musk seeks regulatory approval to rapidly expand the robotaxi service across the U.S. "The public perception of this verdict or things like this are going to fuel pressure on regulators to say, 'We just can't let this stuff be launched without a lot more due diligence'," said Mike Nelson, founder of Nelson Law and an expert on legal issues in the mobility sector. Tesla could have a tough time convincing state regulators that its technology is road-ready, threatening Musk's goal of offering robotaxis to half the U.S. population by year end, legal experts and Tesla investors said. Expanding its robotaxi service is crucial for Tesla as demand for its aging lineup of EVs has cooled amid rising global competition and a backlash against Musk's far right political views. Much of Tesla's trillion-dollar market valuation hinges on his bets on robotics and artificial intelligence. Success in the self-driving realm will require winning the confidence of regulators and potential customers on the full-self driving (FSD) software that underpins Tesla's robotaxis, analysts said. "The timing (of the verdict) for Tesla in light of the FSD rollouts and robotaxis is awful," said Aaron Davis, co-managing partner at law firm Davis Goldman. "Now there's essentially an opinion that some aspect of Tesla's business is not safe and maybe the safety that the company advertises isn't what it's cracked up to be." The FSD is an advanced version of Autopilot. Autopilot, which was been updated since 2019, controls speed, distance and lane centering on highways, while the FSD can operate on city streets, helping the vehicle make automatic turns and change lanes. "This case does not have direct implications for Tesla's FSD roll-out," analysts at Piper Sandler said in a note on Sunday, citing the modern iterations of the software. A spokesperson on behalf of Tesla acknowledged the company had received a request for comment from Reuters but had not provided one by the time of publication. Regulatory road ahead. Perfecting autonomous vehicles has been harder than expected. The high costs of hardware, years of trial and error, and regulatory hurdles have forced many players to close shop or pivot, including General Motors' Cruise unit. Musk, however, has pursued what he calls a simpler and cheaper path, relying only on cameras and AI instead of pricey sensors such as lidars and radars used by Alphabet's Waymo, Amazon's Zoox and others. After years of missed deadlines, Musk rolled out a small robotaxi trial in June with about a dozen Model Y crossover SUVs in Austin, Texas, each overseen by a human safety monitor in the front passenger seat. While Musk has said Tesla was being "super paranoid about safety", he has also pledged to expand the service fast and make it available for half of the U.S. population in the next five months - a stark contrast to Waymo's cautious years-long rollout. Until Tesla's entry, Waymo was the only U.S. firm to operate a paid, driverless robotaxi service. Tesla is currently awaiting approvals in several states, including California, Nevada, Arizona and Florida. California's department of motor vehicles declined to comment on the impact of the verdict on regulatory approval. Nevada said it held talks with Tesla about a robotaxi program several weeks ago, while Arizona said it was still considering Tesla's request for certification. Both did not comment on the verdict. Florida did not respond. Tesla has typically either won other Autopilot litigation or resolved the case with the plaintiffs out of court. The Florida verdict stands out. Several such cases are pending. The case involved a Model S sedan that went through an intersection and hit the victims' parked Chevrolet Tahoe as they were standing beside it. The driver had reached down to retrieve a dropped cellphone and allegedly received no alerts as he ran a stop sign before the crash. The jury found that Tesla's Autopilot had a defect and held the company partially responsible, despite the driver admitting fault. "It's going to take time to get regulators to move forward and time being more than the end of the year," said Gene Munster, managing partner at Deepwater Asset Management, a Tesla investor. "From an image standpoint, it's a black eye."
TimesLIVE
05-08-2025
- Automotive
- TimesLIVE
Autopilot verdict deals Tesla 'black eye', threatens Musk's robotaxi ambitions
A court verdict against Tesla last week, stemming from a fatal 2019 crash of an Autopilot-equipped Model S, could hurt its plans to expand its nascent robotaxi network and intensify concerns about the safety of its autonomous vehicle technology. A Florida jury ordered Elon Musk's electric vehicle (EV) company on Friday to pay about $243m (R4.37bn) to victims of the crash, finding its Autopilot driver-assistance software defective. Tesla said the driver was solely at fault and vowed to appeal. The verdict follows years of federal investigations and recalls related to collisions involving Tesla's autonomous vehicle technology and comes as CEO Musk seeks regulatory approval to rapidly expand the robotaxi service in the US. 'The public perception of this verdict or things such as this are going to fuel pressure on regulators to say, 'We just can't let this stuff be launched without a lot more due diligence',' said Mike Nelson, founder of Nelson Law and an expert on legal issues in the mobility sector. Tesla could have a tough time convincing state regulators that its technology is road-ready, threatening Musk's goal of offering robotaxis to half the US population by year-end, legal experts and Tesla investors said. Expanding its robotaxi service is crucial for Tesla as demand for its ageing line-up of EVs has cooled amid rising global competition and a backlash against Musk's far right political views. Much of Tesla's trillion-dollar market valuation hinges on his bets on robotics and artificial intelligence (AI). Success in the self-driving realm will require winning the confidence of regulators and potential customers on the full-self driving (FSD) software that underpins Tesla's robotaxis, analysts said. 'The timing [of the verdict] for Tesla in light of the FSD rollouts and robotaxis is awful,' said Aaron Davis, co-managing partner at law firm Davis Goldman. 'Now there's essentially an opinion that some aspect of Tesla's business is not safe and maybe the safety the company advertises isn't what it's cracked up to be.' The FSD is an advanced version of Autopilot. Autopilot, which was been updated since 2019, controls speed, distance and lane centring on highways, while the FSD can operate on city streets, helping the vehicle make automatic turns and change lanes. 'This case does not have direct implications for Tesla's FSD rollout,' analysts at Piper Sandler said in a note on Sunday, citing the modern iterations of the software. A spokesperson on behalf of Tesla acknowledged the company had received a request for comment from Reuters but had not provided one by the time of publication. Perfecting autonomous vehicles has been harder than expected. The high cost of hardware, years of trial and error and regulatory hurdles have forced many players to close shop or pivot, including General Motors' Cruise unit. Musk, however, has pursued what he calls a simpler and cheaper path, relying only on cameras and AI instead of pricey sensors such as lidars and radars used by Alphabet's Waymo, Amazon's Zoox and others. After years of missed deadlines, Musk rolled out a small robotaxi trial in June with about a dozen Model Y crossover SUVs in Austin, Texas, each overseen by a human safety monitor in the front passenger seat. While Musk has said Tesla was being 'super paranoid about safety', he has also pledged to expand the service fast and make it available for half of the US population in the next five months — a stark contrast to Waymo's cautious years-long rollout. Until Tesla's entry, Waymo was the only US firm to operate a paid, driverless robotaxi service. Tesla is awaiting approvals in several states, including California, Nevada, Arizona and Florida. California's department of motor vehicles declined to comment on the impact of the verdict on regulatory approval. Nevada said it held talks with Tesla about a robotaxi programme several weeks ago, while Arizona said it was still considering Tesla's request for certification. Both did not comment on the verdict. Florida did not respond. Tesla has typically won other Autopilot litigation or resolved the case with the plaintiffs out of court. The Florida verdict stands out. Several such cases are pending. The case involved a Model S sedan that went through an intersection and hit the victims' parked Chevrolet Tahoe as they were standing beside it. The driver had reached down to retrieve a dropped cellphone and allegedly received no alerts as he ran a stop sign before the crash. The jury found Tesla's Autopilot had a defect and held the company partially responsible, despite the driver admitting fault. 'It's going to take time to get regulators to move forward and time being more than the end of the year,' said Gene Munster, managing partner at Deepwater Asset Management, a Tesla investor. 'From an image standpoint, it's a black eye.'
The Star
05-08-2025
- Automotive
- The Star
Analysis-Autopilot verdict deals Tesla a 'black eye', threatens Musk's robotaxi ambitions
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) -A court verdict against Tesla last week, stemming from a fatal 2019 crash of an Autopilot-equipped Model S, could hurt its plans to expand its nascent robotaxi network and intensify concerns over the safety of its autonomous vehicle technology. A Florida juryordered Musk's electric vehicle company on Friday to pay about $243 million to victims of the crash, finding its Autopilot driver-assistance software defective. Tesla said the driver was solely at fault and vowed to appeal. The verdict follows years of federal investigations and recalls related to collisions involving Tesla's autonomous-vehicle technology, and comes as CEO Elon Musk seeks regulatory approval to rapidly expand the robotaxi service across the U.S. "The public perception of this verdict or things like this are going to fuel pressure on regulators to say, 'We just can't let this stuff be launched without a lot more due diligence'," said Mike Nelson, founder of Nelson Law and an expert on legal issues in the mobility sector. Tesla could havea tough time convincing state regulators that its technology is road-ready, threatening Musk's goal of offering robotaxis to half the U.S. population by year end, legal experts and Tesla investors said. Expanding its robotaxi service is crucial for Tesla as demand for its aging lineup of EVs has cooled amid rising global competition and a backlash against Musk's far right political views. Much of Tesla's trillion-dollar market valuation hinges on his bets on robotics and artificial intelligence. Success in the self-driving realm will requirewinning the confidence of regulators and potential customers on the full-self driving (FSD) software that underpins Tesla's robotaxis, analysts said. "The timing (of the verdict) for Tesla in light of the FSD rollouts and robotaxis is awful," said Aaron Davis, co-managing partner at law firm Davis Goldman. "Now there's essentially an opinion that some aspect of Tesla's business is not safe and maybe the safety that the company advertises isn't what it's cracked up to be." The FSD is an advanced version of Autopilot. Autopilot, which was been updated since 2019, controls speed, distance and lane centering on highways, while the FSD can operate on city streets, helping the vehicle make automatic turns and change lanes. "This case does not have direct implications for Tesla's FSD roll-out," analysts at Piper Sandler said in a note on Sunday, citing the modern iterations of the software. A spokesperson on behalf of Tesla acknowledged the company had received a request for comment from Reuters but had not provided one by the time of publication. REGULATORY ROAD AHEAD Perfecting autonomous vehicles has been harder than expected. The high costs of hardware, years of trial and error, and regulatory hurdles have forced many players to close shop or pivot, including General Motors' Cruise unit. Musk, however, has pursued what he calls a simpler and cheaper path, relying only on cameras and AI instead of pricey sensors such as lidars and radars used by Alphabet's Waymo, Amazon's Zoox and others. After years of missed deadlines, Musk rolled out a small robotaxi trial in June with about a dozen Model Y crossover SUVs in Austin, Texas, each overseen by a human safety monitor in the front passenger seat. While Musk has said Tesla was being "super paranoid about safety", he has also pledged to expand the service fast and make it available for half of the U.S. population in the next five months - a stark contrast to Waymo's cautious years-long rollout. Until Tesla's entry, Waymo was the only U.S. firm to operate a paid, driverless robotaxi service. Tesla is currently awaiting approvals in several states, including California, Nevada, Arizona and Florida. California's department of motor vehicles declined to comment on the impact of the verdict on regulatory approval. Nevada said it held talks with Tesla about a robotaxi program several weeks ago, while Arizona said it was still considering Tesla's request for certification. Both did not comment on the verdict. Florida did not respond. Tesla has typically either won other Autopilot litigation or resolved the case with the plaintiffs out of court. The Florida verdict stands such cases are pending. The case involved a Model S sedan that went through an intersection and hit the victims' parked Chevrolet Tahoe as they were standing beside it. The driver had reached down to retrieve a dropped cellphone and allegedly received no alerts as he ran a stop sign before the crash. The jury found that Tesla's Autopilot had a defect and held the company partially responsible, despite the driver admitting fault. "It's going to take time to get regulators to move forward and time being more than the end of the year," said Gene Munster, managing partner at Deepwater Asset Management, a Tesla investor. "From an image standpoint, it's a black eye." (Reporting by Abhirup Roy in San Francisco; Editing by Mike Colias and Himani Sarkar)
Otago Daily Times
03-08-2025
- Automotive
- Otago Daily Times
Tesla ordered to pay $243m over fatal Autopilot crash
A Florida jury has found Tesla liable to pay $US243 million ($NZ414m) 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 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% on Friday, and are down 25% this year. Jurors in Miami federal court awarded the estate of Naibel Benavides Leon, as well as her former boyfriend Dillon Angulo, $US129 million in compensatory damages plus $US200 million in punitive damages, according to a verdict sheet. Tesla was held liable for 33% of the compensatory damages, or $US42.6 million. Jurors found the driver George McGee liable for 67%, 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 would appeal. "Today's verdict is wrong and only works to set back automotive safety and jeopardize Tesla's and the entire industry's efforts to develop and implement life-saving technology," the company said. The plaintiffs had sought $US345 million of damages. Their lawyers said the trial was the first involving the wrongful death of a third party resulting from Autopilot. IMPACT ON FUTURE CASES Tesla has faced many similar lawsuits over its vehicles' self-driving capabilities, but they have been resolved or dismissed without getting 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 $US1 trillion market value hinges on Musk's ability to pivot the company into robotics and artificial intelligence. DRIVER'S ROLE The trial concerned an April 25, 2019 incident in which George McGee drove his 2019 Model S at about 62mph (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 23 metres 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."
Time of India
03-08-2025
- Automotive
- Time of India
Tesla ordered by Florida jury to pay $243 million in fatal Autopilot crash
A Florida jury on Friday found Tesla liable to pay $243 million 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 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 per cent on Friday, and are down 25 per cent this year. Jurors in Miami federal court awarded the estate of Naibel Benavides Leon, as well as her former boyfriend Dillon Angulo, $129 million in compensatory damages plus $200 million in punitive damages, according to a verdict sheet. Tesla was held liable for 33 per cent of the compensatory damages, or $42.6 million. Jurors found the driver George McGee liable for 67 per cent, 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 jeopardize Tesla's and the entire industry's efforts to develop and implement life-saving technology," the company said. The plaintiffs had sought $345 million of damages. Their lawyers said the trial was the first involving the wrongful death of a third party resulting from Autopilot. Impact on future cases Tesla has faced many similar lawsuits over its vehicles' self-driving capabilities, but they have been resolved or dismissed without getting 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. Driver's role The trial concerned an April 25, 2019 incident where George McGee drove his 2019 Model S at about 62 mph (100 kph) 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 75 feet (23 meters) 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."
