Updates on the Latest High-Profile Tesla Crash

A few weeks ago I wrote about the latest high-profile crash involving Tesla’s level 2 automation system, in which a car drove into a two-story brick house on a quiet residential street in Katy, Texas, killing a woman who was standing in her living room. Some developments since then merit an update.

Both the NTSB and the NHTSA have opened investigations into the incident. The NTSB has preliminarily confirmed Tesla’s initial reaction to the event: the driver had “overridden” the automation system by pressing the accelerator, in this case to 100%, causing the car to accelerate to a speed of 73 miles per hour before it hit the house.

The driver, meanwhile, has been charged with manslaughter. To my knowledge, this is only the second time a driver has been criminally prosecuted for a crash resulting from misuse of an automated driving system. In the previous case, the driver was using Autopilot when he ran a red light, killing two people.

The above facts will likely cause many to conclude that this crash was not Tesla’s fault. A bit more context complicates the picture. First, it is worth noting the similarities to Benavides, last summer’s blockbuster verdict against Tesla. In that case, the driver also “overrode” Autopilot by putting his foot on the accelerator. As the evidence showed at trial, accelerating with Autopilot engaged does not completely disable the system; rather, it overrides “traffic aware cruise control” (the system that adjusts the car’s speed in response to traffic in the lane ahead) but not “autosteer,” automatic emergency braking, or forward collision warning. I am not certain how Tesla’s latest system, which it calls “Full Self Driving (Supervised)” responds in these situations, but to say that the automation system has been “overridden” by a foot on the accelerator is probably at least somewhat misleading.

My sense is that the involvement of criminal law is a welcome development here. Crashes like these implicate complex questions of responsibility. To what extent do we expect drivers to understand the nuances of the automation systems they use and take responsibility for maintaining vigilance on the roads? To what extent do we expect manufacturers to design their systems to mitigate the effects of known human imperfections, which products liability law would call “foreseeable misuse”? The driver in Benavides, George McGee, who killed a young woman and caused permanent injuries to her boyfriend, got little more than a slap on the wrist (he was fined $1,000 and settled a tort suit for an undisclosed sum).

It will be interesting to watch how criminal and tort law develop in this area.

Continue ReadingUpdates on the Latest High-Profile Tesla Crash

Yet Another Fatal “Autopilot” Crash

The latest fatal crash involving Tesla’s level 2 automation system is particularly chilling. The victim, Martha Avila, was standing inside her house on a quiet back street when a Tesla Model 3, reportedly with “an automated driving assistance system” engaged, ran off the road and into the two-story brick home, killing her. Local police and the NHTSA have opened investigations.

The driver, Michael Butler, was not intoxicated. Doorbell camera footage shows the car running off the road so fast as to be barely visible. Tesla has not responded to requests for comment from the media, but its vice president of AI and software, Ashok Elluswamy, posted on X that the car was going 73 miles per hour and that the driver “manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.”

One of my scholarly projects for the summer is an article about the first fatal autonomous driving case to result in a jury trial, Benavides v. Tesla. That crash, which I blogged about last summer, killed a young woman and severely injured her boyfriend, resulting in a verdict holding Tesla 33% responsible and imposing $42 million in compensatory damages and $200 million in punitive damages.

There are some striking similarities between the two incidents. In both cases, the driver had his foot on the accelerator, causing the car to travel far in excess of the speed limit. Both incidents occurred on surface streets. The Benavides crash, which occurred in 2019, involved an older level 2 system that Tesla controversially called “Autopilot.” (Following the jury verdict, Tesla settled a series of other pending cases and retired the name.) Autopilot was not supposed to be used on surface streets, and one of the plaintiff’s theories of defect was that, given the number of fatal crashes that had already occurred, it shouldn’t have been possible for users to activate Autopilot in an area it wasn’t designed for. Today, Tesla’s level 2 system is known as “Full Self Driving (Supervised),” a name that is arguably less sensationally inappropriate given its capabilities. “FSD,” as it is commonly known, now has a much broader operational design domain, and can be used on all kind of roads, including the quiet residential street on which Martha Avila lived.

Continue ReadingYet Another Fatal “Autopilot” Crash

Jury Awards $242 Million in First Verdict Against Tesla

Post-accident photo of the Tesla in Benavides case

The jury trial I wrote about several weeks ago has come to a conclusion, with the jury finding Tesla liable in the death of Naibel Benavides Leon. Notably, the jury concluded that the driver, George McGee, was 67% responsible for the crash, while Tesla was 33% responsible. Nonetheless, Tesla will be required (pursuant to a judgment entered yesterday) to pay more than $42 million in compensatory damages and $200 million in punitive damages.

The verdict may not survive appeal or may be reduced. Still, the result is a major vindication of the plaintiff’s theory of defect against Tesla, and ought to put the company on notice that its “blame the driver” litigation strategy may not hold water with juries.

Tesla was able to demonstrate at trial that the driver’s distraction was a significant factor in this case (in the language of 1L torts, a but-for cause). McGee dropped his cellphone and was looking for it on the floor of his car when he ran a stop sign at 65 miles per hour and crashed into a parked Chevy Tahoe. Tesla sought to pin blame for the crash on him, arguing that no level 2 driver assistance system could have prevented it. To some extent this worked, as shown by the jury’s finding that McGee was 67% responsible for the incident (he was not a defendant in the case, having previously settled plaintiffs’ separate case against him).

Continue ReadingJury Awards $242 Million in First Verdict Against Tesla
Older Posts