Tesla Challenges Autopilot Verdict, Citing Errors and Prejudicial Evidence

In a significant legal maneuver, Tesla has initiated an appeal to invalidate a substantial $243 million verdict recently awarded in a fatal crash lawsuit. The automotive giant's legal team has formally requested either the nullification of the previous ruling, a reduction or complete elimination of the awarded damages, or a fresh trial altogether. Tesla asserts that the initial proceedings were marred by numerous legal missteps and the erroneous inclusion of evidence that unfairly influenced the jury's decision against the company. This particular case holds considerable weight as it represents the first instance where a court has found Tesla accountable in a wrongful death claim involving its Autopilot system, previous cases having been settled outside of court.
The legal dispute stems from a 2019 collision involving a Tesla Model S in Florida. During the incident, the vehicle's driver reportedly dropped his phone, and while attempting to retrieve it, the Model S proceeded through a stop sign at a T-intersection. This resulted in a collision with a parked Chevrolet Tahoe, which subsequently struck two pedestrians, tragically causing one fatality and severe injuries to the other. The jury's assessment of responsibility attributed 67% of the blame to the driver and 33% to Tesla for compensatory damages. However, Tesla was additionally penalized with a substantial $200 million in punitive damages. The plaintiffs involved in the case separately reached a resolution with the driver.
Tesla’s motion, spanning 71 pages, meticulously outlines the company’s objections to the trial’s outcome. A key contention raised by Tesla is that the verdict lacks support from reliable expert testimony. Furthermore, the company argues that the plaintiffs' design-defect theories are legally unfounded, asserting that the 2019 Model S was not inherently flawed and that the driver's actions were the sole cause of the injuries. Tesla also claims that it had no legal obligation to issue a warning and that, in any event, extensive warnings were provided. The company further alleges that the asserted failure to warn was not a contributing factor to the accident.
A significant aspect of Tesla's appeal revolves around the admissibility of certain evidence during the trial, which the company claims prejudiced the jury. Specifically, Tesla objects to the inclusion of data-related evidence, which plaintiffs alleged the company withheld. They also contest the introduction of Elon Musk’s public statements regarding Autopilot, arguing they were irrelevant, exceeded court-set limits, and unfairly biased the jury. Tesla's legal team contends that allowing such statements to be used against the company could discourage other corporations from making forward-looking projections about technological advancements. Additionally, Tesla maintains that the punitive damages levied against it are excessive and not in line with Florida law or due process principles, arguing that the company's conduct was not sufficiently reprehensible to warrant such a severe penalty.
Despite Tesla's arguments, the plaintiffs' legal representatives remain confident in the verdict. They view the motion as further evidence of Tesla's perceived disregard for the human cost associated with its technology. They underscore that the jury, after considering all facts, rightly determined a shared responsibility, acknowledging the pivotal role of Autopilot and the company's alleged misrepresentations in the tragic event. The plaintiffs assert that the verdict does not condemn the autonomous vehicle sector as a whole, but rather highlights Tesla’s allegedly reckless approach to the development and deployment of its Autopilot system. This ongoing legal battle emphasizes the complex challenges and liabilities surrounding advanced automotive technologies and the public's expectations of their capabilities.