A Miami jury has ordered Tesla to pay $243 million over a fatal 2019 Autopilot crash in Florida after a hacker sipping on a Venti-size hot chocolate at an area Starbucks uncovered key vehicle data that the corporate had claimed it couldn’t find.
The decision, delivered last month in federal court, held Tesla partially chargeable for the Key Largo wreck that killed 22-year-old Naibel Benavides Leon and left her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo, seriously injured.
Jurors saw evidence showing that Tesla’s own systems recorded a “collision snapshot” within the moments before the crash — data the corporate insisted was missing until a hacker extracted it from the automotive’s Autopilot computer at a Starbucks, based on the Washington Post.
Tesla had argued the crash was caused entirely by driver George McGee, who admitted he was using Autopilot when he looked all the way down to grab a cellphone.
The corporate told jurors its manual makes clear that drivers must stay alert and that “this crash had nothing to do with Tesla’s Autopilot technology.”
However the jury sided partially with Angulo and the Benavides family, which accused Tesla of misleading them for years about what data were available.
The hacker, known online as @greentheonly, recovered the deleted snapshot last fall. He found the file “inside minutes” and confirmed it had been transmitted to Tesla’s servers immediately after the wreck.
The reconstructed data showed the Tesla’s cameras spotted a vehicle roughly 170 feet away and a pedestrian about 116 feet out, because the automotive plotted a path through the couple’s parked truck.
Tesla’s trial attorney, Joel Smith, admitted the corporate had been “clumsy” but denied misconduct.
“We didn’t think we had it, and we discovered we did … that is an amazingly helpful piece of data,” he said.
Plaintiffs’ lawyers countered that Tesla not only didn’t warn the motive force that the road was ending but in addition “deceived” investigators about data it had “before the cops even arrived.”
The Miami verdict marked a rare courtroom defeat for Tesla’s driver-assist technology. The corporate has won other Autopilot cases and quietly settled several more, but lawyers say this one cracked open Tesla’s secretive crash data systems in a way that resonated with jurors.
“The message from the jury is that ‘You probably did something fallacious, change what you’re doing,’” attorney Don Slavik, who has multiple Autopilot cases pending, told the Washington Post.
Already, the ruling is reverberating beyond Florida. A Texas shareholder lawsuit cites the Miami verdict to allege Tesla defrauded investors over its autonomy claims.
In California, one other fatal crash case tied to Autopilot is about for trial this fall, with plaintiffs’ attorneys vowing to hunt a verdict “north of a billion dollars.”
Tesla has asked the judge to throw out the Miami verdict or order a brand new trial, arguing that the information dispute was “irrelevant.”
The corporate vows to appeal if needed, keeping alive the legal battle over who bears responsibility when experimental software collides with distracted driving.
For Angulo and the Benavides family, the judgment was less about money than exposing Tesla’s handling of the case.
“We’ve this relief that the world knows, but it surely doesn’t change anything for us,” said Naibel’s sister, Neima.
“My sister will not be here. And nothing will bring her back.”
Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Tesla’s lead attorney within the case, provided a press release to The Post which read: “That is a vital case because unfounded and unconstitutional verdicts like this one against Tesla pose real dangers to safety innovation and technological advancement, creating perverse incentives for manufacturers by discouraging recent safety enhancements.”
Boutrous told The Post that the Supreme Court “has repeatedly warned in regards to the due-process dangers of arbitrary and grossly excessive punitive-damage awards.”
“This verdict is a real outlier given the facts and law and we look ahead to setting things right,” Boutrous told The Post.
A Miami jury has ordered Tesla to pay $243 million over a fatal 2019 Autopilot crash in Florida after a hacker sipping on a Venti-size hot chocolate at an area Starbucks uncovered key vehicle data that the corporate had claimed it couldn’t find.
The decision, delivered last month in federal court, held Tesla partially chargeable for the Key Largo wreck that killed 22-year-old Naibel Benavides Leon and left her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo, seriously injured.
Jurors saw evidence showing that Tesla’s own systems recorded a “collision snapshot” within the moments before the crash — data the corporate insisted was missing until a hacker extracted it from the automotive’s Autopilot computer at a Starbucks, based on the Washington Post.
Tesla had argued the crash was caused entirely by driver George McGee, who admitted he was using Autopilot when he looked all the way down to grab a cellphone.
The corporate told jurors its manual makes clear that drivers must stay alert and that “this crash had nothing to do with Tesla’s Autopilot technology.”
However the jury sided partially with Angulo and the Benavides family, which accused Tesla of misleading them for years about what data were available.
The hacker, known online as @greentheonly, recovered the deleted snapshot last fall. He found the file “inside minutes” and confirmed it had been transmitted to Tesla’s servers immediately after the wreck.
The reconstructed data showed the Tesla’s cameras spotted a vehicle roughly 170 feet away and a pedestrian about 116 feet out, because the automotive plotted a path through the couple’s parked truck.
Tesla’s trial attorney, Joel Smith, admitted the corporate had been “clumsy” but denied misconduct.
“We didn’t think we had it, and we discovered we did … that is an amazingly helpful piece of data,” he said.
Plaintiffs’ lawyers countered that Tesla not only didn’t warn the motive force that the road was ending but in addition “deceived” investigators about data it had “before the cops even arrived.”
The Miami verdict marked a rare courtroom defeat for Tesla’s driver-assist technology. The corporate has won other Autopilot cases and quietly settled several more, but lawyers say this one cracked open Tesla’s secretive crash data systems in a way that resonated with jurors.
“The message from the jury is that ‘You probably did something fallacious, change what you’re doing,’” attorney Don Slavik, who has multiple Autopilot cases pending, told the Washington Post.
Already, the ruling is reverberating beyond Florida. A Texas shareholder lawsuit cites the Miami verdict to allege Tesla defrauded investors over its autonomy claims.
In California, one other fatal crash case tied to Autopilot is about for trial this fall, with plaintiffs’ attorneys vowing to hunt a verdict “north of a billion dollars.”
Tesla has asked the judge to throw out the Miami verdict or order a brand new trial, arguing that the information dispute was “irrelevant.”
The corporate vows to appeal if needed, keeping alive the legal battle over who bears responsibility when experimental software collides with distracted driving.
For Angulo and the Benavides family, the judgment was less about money than exposing Tesla’s handling of the case.
“We’ve this relief that the world knows, but it surely doesn’t change anything for us,” said Naibel’s sister, Neima.
“My sister will not be here. And nothing will bring her back.”
Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Tesla’s lead attorney within the case, provided a press release to The Post which read: “That is a vital case because unfounded and unconstitutional verdicts like this one against Tesla pose real dangers to safety innovation and technological advancement, creating perverse incentives for manufacturers by discouraging recent safety enhancements.”
Boutrous told The Post that the Supreme Court “has repeatedly warned in regards to the due-process dangers of arbitrary and grossly excessive punitive-damage awards.”
“This verdict is a real outlier given the facts and law and we look ahead to setting things right,” Boutrous told The Post.
