A Florida jury has delivered a significant blow to Tesla, finding the electric vehicle giant partially responsible for a fatal 2019 car accident that involved its Autopilot driver assistance system. This landmark decision, coming after a three-week trial in Miami, awarded substantial damages to the family of the deceased and an injured party, potentially setting a crucial legal precedent for autonomous vehicle technology moving forward.
The tragic incident occurred in Key Largo, Florida, when George McGee, while using Autopilot in his Tesla Model S, reportedly dropped his phone. As he attempted to retrieve it, the vehicle accelerated through a T-intersection at 62 miles per hour, colliding with a parked car and striking two individuals who were stargazing. The collision tragically resulted in the death of 22-year-old Naibel Benavides and left her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo, with severe injuries, including broken bones and a traumatic brain injury.
The jury’s verdict assigned partial liability to Tesla, mandating that the company cover approximately $43 million of the $129 million in compensatory costs and up to an additional $200 million in punitive damages. The total award reached $329 million, a staggering sum that underscores the gravity of the jury’s findings regarding the company’s responsibility in the incident.
In response to the ruling, a Tesla representative issued a statement vehemently disagreeing with the outcome, asserting that the verdict was “wrong” and could “set back automotive safety.” The company maintains that McGee was solely at fault, claiming he kept his foot on the accelerator pedal, thereby overriding the Autopilot system. Tesla has publicly stated its intention to appeal the decision, citing “substantial errors of law and irregularities at trial.”
For over a decade, Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla, has consistently promoted the imminent arrival of fully autonomous, safe Teslas, promising to revolutionize travel. However, the company has faced persistent criticism for its marketing of existing driver assistance systems with terms like “Autopilot” and “Full Self-Driving,” which critics argue are potentially misleading. More recently, the rollout of driverless “Robotaxis” in major U.S. cities has further amplified public and regulatory concerns.
This Florida jury verdict could establish a significant legal precedent, potentially opening the door for numerous other legal actions against Tesla. Previous similar cases involving collisions where a Tesla had driver assistance systems engaged were often dismissed. However, this ruling may embolden plaintiffs in future lawsuits, forcing the automaker to contend with increased scrutiny and potential financial liabilities over the performance and marketing of its technology.
Attorneys representing the plaintiffs argued strenuously that Tesla had allegedly withheld critical crash data, which their own forensic expert later uncovered. Lead attorney Brett Schreiber emphasized that Tesla designed Autopilot primarily for controlled access highways but chose not to restrict its use elsewhere, while Musk publicly claimed the system outperformed human drivers. Schreiber contended that Tesla’s “lies turned our roads into test tracks,” leading to tragic consequences and holding the company and Musk accountable for prioritizing “self-driving hype at the expense of human lives.”
Beyond the legal battle, Tesla has recently reported its third consecutive quarterly sales slump, reflecting not only the controversial public persona of Elon Musk but also the increasing competition from other electric vehicle manufacturers, notably China’s BYD, which has introduced more affordable models. While the company faces these sales challenges, Musk has focused public attention on other ventures like humanoid robots, the Cybertruck, and his master plan for artificial intelligence.
Interestingly, Elon Musk made no mention of the Florida lawsuit verdict on X, his social media platform, on the day the ruling was announced. Instead, he chose to repost content related to the quality of Tesla’s dashboard screens and the utility of Grok, his company’s chatbot, as a voice assistant for drivers, perhaps an attempt to shift focus from the significant legal development.
