{"id":83401,"date":"2025-08-29T14:58:11","date_gmt":"2025-08-29T18:58:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/autosector.com\/?p=83401"},"modified":"2025-08-29T14:58:11","modified_gmt":"2025-08-29T18:58:11","slug":"tesla-asks-court-to-throw-out-243-million-verdict-in-fatal-autopilot-crash-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/autosector.com\/?p=83401","title":{"rendered":"Tesla says Musk Autopilot claims should not have been heard in fatal crash case"},"content":{"rendered":"<figure class=\"img-border featured-image\">\n\t<img fetchpriority=\"high\" width=\"1076\" height=\"717\" src=\"https:\/\/electrek.co\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2025\/08\/tesla-autopilot-crash-florida-mcgee-monroe-county-sheriff.webp?w=1076\" class=\"skip-lazy wp-post-image\" alt=\"\" srcset=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/electrek.co\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2025\/08\/tesla-autopilot-crash-florida-mcgee-monroe-county-sheriff.webp?w=320&amp;quality=82&amp;strip=all&amp;ssl=1 320w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/electrek.co\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2025\/08\/tesla-autopilot-crash-florida-mcgee-monroe-county-sheriff.webp?w=640&amp;quality=82&amp;strip=all&amp;ssl=1 640w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/electrek.co\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2025\/08\/tesla-autopilot-crash-florida-mcgee-monroe-county-sheriff.webp?w=1024&amp;quality=82&amp;strip=all&amp;ssl=1 1024w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/electrek.co\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2025\/08\/tesla-autopilot-crash-florida-mcgee-monroe-county-sheriff.webp?w=1500&amp;quality=82&amp;strip=all&amp;ssl=1 1500w\" decoding=\"async\" fetchpriority=\"high\"\/><figcaption>\n\t\t\t\tPhoto by Monroe County Sheriff&#8217;s Department, via New York Times\t\t\t<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>Lawyers for Tesla filed a motion asking a court to throw out a<a href=\"https:\/\/electrek.co\/2025\/08\/01\/tesla-tsla-is-found-liable-in-fatal-autopilot-crash-has-to-pay-329-million\/\"> recent $243 million verdict<\/a> against the company related to a fatal crash in Florida in 2019. The case is the first instance of Tesla being ruled against by a court in an Autopilot liability case \u2013 previous cases had ended up settled out of court.<\/p>\n<p><span id=\"more-432053\"\/><\/p>\n<p>To catch up, the case in question is the\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/electrek.co\/2025\/08\/01\/tesla-tsla-is-found-liable-in-fatal-autopilot-crash-has-to-pay-329-million\/\">$243 million Autopilot wrongful death case<\/a>\u00a0which concluded early this month. It was the first actual trial verdict against the company in an Autopilot wrongful death case \u2013 not counting previous out-of-court settlements.<\/p>\n<p>The case centered around a 2019 crash of a Model S in Florida, where the driver dropped his phone and while he was picking it up, the Model S drove through a stop sign at a T-intersection, crashing into a parked Chevy Tahoe which then struck two pedestrians, killing one and seriously injuring the other.<\/p>\n<p>Tesla was also caught\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/electrek.co\/2025\/08\/04\/tesla-withheld-data-lied-misdirected-police-plaintiffs-avoid-blame-autopilot-crash\/\">withholding data<\/a>\u00a0in the case, which is not a good look.<\/p>\n<p>\t<span class=\"outbrain-ad-label\">Advertisement &#8211; scroll for more content<\/span><\/p>\n<p>In the end, for the purposes of compensatory damages, the driver was found 67% responsible and Tesla was found 33% responsible. But Tesla was also slapped with $200 million in punitive damages. The plaintiffs reached a settlement with the driver separately.<\/p>\n<p>Tesla said at the time that it planned to appeal the case, and its first move in that respect happened today, with lawyers for Tesla filing a 71-page motion laying out the problems they had with the trial.<\/p>\n<p>In it, Tesla requests either that the previous verdict be thrown out, that the amount of damages be reduced or eliminated, or that the case go to a new trial, based on what Tesla contends were numerous errors of law during the trial.<\/p>\n<p>The table of contents of Tesla\u2019s filing lays out the company\u2019s rough arguments for why it\u2019s requesting the verdict to be thrown out, with Tesla seeming to throw several arguments at the wall to see what sticks:<\/p>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>I.\u00a0Tesla Is Entitled to Judgment as a Matter of Law (or at Least a New Trial) on Liability.\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>A.\u00a0The Verdict Is Unsupported by Reliable Expert Evidence.<\/li>\n<li>B.\u00a0Plaintiffs\u2019 Design-Defect Theories Fail as a Matter of Law.\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>1.\u00a0Tesla\u2019s 2019 Model S Was Not Defective.<\/li>\n<li>2.\u00a0McGee Was the Sole Cause of Plaintiffs\u2019 Injuries.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>C.\u00a0The Failure-to-Warn Claim Fails as a Matter of Law.\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>1.\u00a0Tesla Had No Duty to Warn.<\/li>\n<li>2.\u00a0Tesla Provided Extensive Warnings.<\/li>\n<li>3.\u00a0The Asserted Failure to Warn Didn\u2019t Cause the Crash.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>D.\u00a0Tesla Is Entitled to a New Trial If the Record Cannot Sustain the Verdict as to Any Theory on Which the Jury Was Instructed.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>II. Highly Prejudicial Evidentiary Errors Warrant a New Trial on All Issues.\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>A.\u00a0The Improper Admission of Data-Related Evidence Prejudiced Tesla.<\/li>\n<li>B.\u00a0The Improper Admission of Elon Musk\u2019s Statements Prejudiced Tesla.<\/li>\n<li>C.\u00a0The Improper Admission of Dissimilar Accidents Prejudiced Tesla.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>III. This Court Should Grant Tesla Judgment as a Matter of Law on Punitive Damages or at Least Significantly Reduce Punitive Damages.\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>A.\u00a0Florida Law Prohibits the Imposition of Any Punitive Damages in This Case.<\/li>\n<li>B.\u00a0Florida Law Caps Punitive Damages at Three Times the Compensatory Damages Actually Awarded Against Tesla.<\/li>\n<li>C.\u00a0The Due Process Clause Limits Punitive Damages Here to No More Than the Net Award of Compensatory Damages.\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>1.\u00a0Tesla\u2019s Conduct Was Not Reprehensible.<\/li>\n<li>2.\u00a0A Substantial Disparity Exists Between the $200 Million Award of Punitive Damages and the $42.3 Million Award of Compensatory Damages.<\/li>\n<li>3.\u00a0Comparable Civil Penalties Do Not Justify the Punitive-Damages Award.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>IV.\u00a0This Court Should Reduce the Grossly Excessive Award of Compensatory Damages to No More Than $69 Million.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>In short, Tesla blames the driver (who was found 67% liable) fully for the crash, says that the Model S and its Autopilot system were state-of-the-art and not defective because \u201cno car in the world at the time\u201d could have avoided the accident, that it provided proper warnings even though it didn\u2019t need to, that evidence was improperly admitted to prejudice the jury against Tesla, and that the punitive damages are excessive.<\/p>\n<p>After looking through the document, Tesla\u2019s main contention seems to be with the admission of various evidence that it says prejudiced the jury against Tesla.<\/p>\n<p>Indeed, the only exhibit attached to the filing is a transcript of a podcast episode where one of plaintiffs\u2019 experts talks about evidence that Tesla <a href=\"https:\/\/electrek.co\/2025\/08\/04\/tesla-withheld-data-lied-misdirected-police-plaintiffs-avoid-blame-autopilot-crash\/\">withheld data<\/a>, which Tesla says should have been inadmissible and prejudiced the jury against it.<\/p>\n<p>The plaintiffs repeatedly asserted that Tesla had deliberately withheld or tried to delete data,  which required them to bring in <a href=\"https:\/\/electrek.co\/2025\/08\/04\/tesla-withheld-data-lied-misdirected-police-plaintiffs-avoid-blame-autopilot-crash\/\">third party experts to discover and examine the data<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>Tesla says that the only reason these arguments were brought into court was to make the jury feel like there was a coverup, even though Tesla claims that there was no coverup. By repeatedly mentioning this, Tesla says the jury had a more negative view of the company than was fair.<\/p>\n<p>It also says that Tesla CEO Elon Musk\u2019s statements about Autopilot shouldn\u2019t have been admissible, and that they prejudiced the jury against Tesla. Tesla says that the statements by Musk shown at the trial were irrelevant to plaintiffs\u2019 case, exceeded the limits the court had set on which statements would be admissible, and that the admission of these statements \u201cwould disincentivize companies from making visionary projections about anticipated technological breakthroughs.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>You can read through the full filing <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scribd.com\/document\/908699245\/Angulo-Benavides-2025-08-29-de-568-Tesla-s-Renewed-Motion-for-Judgment-as-a-Matter-of-Law-32457875-1\">here<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><em><strong>Update:<\/strong><\/em> After this story was published, plaintiffs\u2019 attorneys reached out with their own statement<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\" readability=\"15\">\n<p>\u201cThis motion is the latest example of Tesla and Musk\u2019s complete disregard for the human cost of their defective technology. The jury heard all the facts and came to the right conclusion that this was a case of shared responsibility, but that does not discount the integral role Autopilot and the company\u2019s misrepresentations of its capabilities played in the crash that killed Naibel and permanently injured Dillon. We are confident the court will uphold this verdict, which serves not as an indictment of the autonomous vehicle industry, but of Tesla\u2019s reckless and unsafe development and deployment of its Autopilot system.\u201d \u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\u2013<em>Brett Schreiber of Singleton Schreiber, lead trial counsel for plaintiffs Dillon Angulo &amp; Naibel Benavides<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"h-electrek-s-take\">Electrek\u2019s Take<\/h2>\n<p>Reading through the filing is persuasive at first, but remember that this is only one side of the story \u2013 and Tesla is well-known for never budging an inch in legal or reputational matters. (<strong><em>Update<\/em>: <\/strong>for a quick reaction from \u201cthe other side,\u201d see the statement by plaintiffs\u2019 attorneys directly above).<\/p>\n<p>Thinking a little deeper, the filing does rely on a similar \u201cpuffery\u201d argument which <a href=\"https:\/\/electrek.co\/2024\/10\/02\/elon-musk-celebrates-winning-lawsuit-tesla-self-driving-claims-embarrassing-defense\/\">Tesla has used before<\/a>. The idea here is that Musk\u2019s statements should be ignored because he, as the CEO of the company, has an incentive (and well-known tendency) to overstate the capabilities of its vehicles.<\/p>\n<p>Lawyers did not use that exact word here, but they do claim that Musk\u2019s statements are \u201cforward-looking\u201d and \u201cvisionary.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>But, for a guy who talks so much that he <a href=\"https:\/\/www.morningstar.com\/news\/marketwatch\/20240820182\/elon-musks-44-billion-twitter-purchase-ranks-as-worst-deal-for-banks-since-the-financial-crisis-wsj\">wasted $44 billion<\/a> on a <a href=\"https:\/\/arstechnica.com\/tech-policy\/2024\/01\/since-elon-musks-twitter-purchase-firm-reportedly-lost-72-of-its-value\/\">$12 billion social media site<\/a> (<a href=\"https:\/\/boingboing.net\/2025\/03\/31\/elon-musk-buys-twitter-again-from-himself.html\">twice<\/a>) so that he could force his words in front of every user every day, denying that his words have an effect is a strange legal argument.<\/p>\n<p>Indeed, Tesla has a history of not doing paid advertisements in traditional media, and has relied on Musk, and specifically Musk\u2019s twitter account, to be the company\u2019s impromptu communications platform. Musk even <a href=\"https:\/\/electrek.co\/2020\/10\/06\/tesla-dissolves-pr-department\/\">closed the company\u2019s PR department<\/a>, instead taking on the full burden of that himself.<\/p>\n<p>So to argue that Musk\u2019s statements shouldn\u2019t be admissible, or that they didn\u2019t set the tone for the organization, is more than a little silly.<\/p>\n<p>While Tesla and Musk did state many times that Autopilot was not full self-driving (although, neither was the feature they marketed under the name, ahem, \u201cFull Self-Driving\u201d), the balance of Musk\u2019s statements describing Tesla\u2019s features definitely could have led a driver to think that the vehicles were more capable than any other vehicle on the road.<\/p>\n<p>This is why it\u2019s strange that Tesla also argues that \u201cno other car\u201d could have stopped in the situation of the crash. If your company is constantly claiming that you have the best, safest, most autonomy-enabled vehicle in the world (including in this filing, where it is referred to as \u201cstate of the art\u201d), then who cares whether other cars could have done it or not? We\u2019re talking about <em>your<\/em> car, not anything else.<\/p>\n<p>Further, Tesla said that admitting these statements will put a chilling effect on every corporation\u2019s ability to project anticipated breakthroughs in tech. To this I say, frankly: good. Enough with the nonsense, lets focus on reality, and lets stop excusing lies as corporate puffery, across all industries.<\/p>\n<p>But this is an example of Tesla trying to have it both ways, to pretend that Musk\u2019s statements are just puffery but also that they are important to breakthroughs and that silencing Musk would harm the company. Yes, it probably would harm Tesla\u2019s outreach \u2013 because Musk\u2019s statements are roughly the only source of Tesla\u2019s advertising, which is why they ought to be heard to establish what the public thinks about the capabilities of Teslas.<\/p>\n<p>And while Tesla says that cases like these would \u201cchill\u201d development of safety features if manufacturers are punished for bringing them to market, the punishment here isn\u2019t for bringing the feature to market, it\u2019s for overselling the feature in a way that set public expectations too high. Other features have not received this sort of scrutiny because other features don\u2019t get pumped up daily with <a href=\"https:\/\/electrek.co\/2025\/08\/28\/elon-musk-lying-tesla-self-driving-dms-prove-it\/\">ridiculous overstatements<\/a> by the company\u2019s sole source of advertising.<\/p>\n<p>On the other points, I\u2019m not a lawyer. I\u2019m not up to date on the specific limits to punitive damages in Florida. But on the surface, it seems fair to me that if a company was found to <a href=\"https:\/\/electrek.co\/2025\/08\/04\/tesla-withheld-data-lied-misdirected-police-plaintiffs-avoid-blame-autopilot-crash\/\">withhold data<\/a> in an important case, after <a href=\"https:\/\/electrek.co\/2025\/08\/26\/tesla-kept-its-promise-not-to-settle-it-cost-the-company-an-extra-183-million\/\">declining a settlement<\/a>, that some level of significant punishment is fair.<\/p>\n<p>After all, <a href=\"https:\/\/electrek.co\/2023\/10\/24\/go-home-cruise-youre-drunk-but-call-a-waymo-cause-you-cant-drive-in-ca-anymore\/\">withholding data<\/a> in a single non-fatal crash that wasn\u2019t even their fault is what led Cruise to <a href=\"https:\/\/electrek.co\/2023\/10\/26\/after-its-license-was-pulled-in-ca-cruise-is-pausing-operations-everywhere\/\">shut down operations everywhere<\/a>. That may have been an overreaction and would certainly be an overreaction in this case with Tesla, given the driver\u2019s responsibility for the crash. But in this case, the damage done to people (a death) was greater, and the damages Tesla is being told to pay ($243 million) will not lead to a shutdown of the entire company. Especially considering this is the same company that just managed to <a href=\"https:\/\/electrek.co\/2025\/08\/04\/tesla-tsla-moves-to-give-elon-musk-26-billion-worth-of-shares\/\">find tens of billions of dollars<\/a> to give to a <a href=\"https:\/\/electrek.co\/2024\/09\/05\/i-sold-all-my-tesla-shares-tsla-why\/?extended-comments=1\">bad CEO<\/a>.<\/p>\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n<p><em>The 30% federal solar tax credit is ending this year. If you\u2019ve ever considered going solar, now\u2019s the time to act. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out\u00a0<\/em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.dpbolvw.net\/click-101268381-15908683\"><em>EnergySage<\/em><\/a><em>, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it\u2019s free to use, and you won\u2019t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you\u2019ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way.\u00a0<\/em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.dpbolvw.net\/click-101268381-15908683\"><em>Get started here<\/em><\/a><em>.<\/em><\/p>\n<div class=\"ad-disclaimer-container\" readability=\"6.3518518518519\">\n<p class=\"disclaimer-affiliate\"><em>FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.<\/em> <a href=\"https:\/\/electrek.co\/about\/#affiliate\">More.<\/a><\/p>\n<p><!-- post ad --><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Photo by Monroe County Sheriff&#8217;s Department, via New York Times Lawyers for Tesla filed a motion asking a court to throw out a recent $243 million verdict against the company related to a fatal crash in Florida in 2019. The case is the first instance of Tesla being ruled against by a court in an [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":8313,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-83401","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-e-cars"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/autosector.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83401","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/autosector.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/autosector.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/autosector.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/autosector.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=83401"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/autosector.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83401\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/autosector.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/8313"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/autosector.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=83401"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/autosector.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=83401"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/autosector.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=83401"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}