Tesla Challenges $242.5M Verdict in Product Liability Suit over Fatal Crash, Citing Advanced Safety Features
Tesla is pursuing an appeal against the jury’s decision in a product liability and wrongful death lawsuit, which could potentially cost the electric vehicle manufacturer $242.5 million. The appeal, filed with Florida’s Southern district court, seeks to either overturn the verdict or schedule a retrial.
Gibson Dunn, representing Tesla in the appeal process, argues that compensatory damages should be substantially reduced from $129 million to a maximum of $69 million. If successful, this would result in Tesla being liable for a $23 million award, assuming the initial verdict—which found Tesla partially responsible for the crash—remains unchanged.
The firm also contends that punitive damages should be either abolished or reduced to a maximum of three times compensatory damages, considering Florida’s statutory cap on such damages.
The lawsuit revolves around a fatal accident that took place in 2019 in Key Largo, Florida, involving George McGee operating his Tesla Model S sedan while using the company’s Enhanced Autopilot, a semi-autonomous driving system. During the trial, McGee testified that he believed the Enhanced Autopilot would apply brakes if an obstacle was detected.
Despite this belief, McGee’s Model S crashed through an intersection at over 60 miles per hour, striking a parked vehicle and its owners on the opposite side. The impact resulted in the death of 22-year-old Naibel Benavides and caused severe injuries to her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo.
A Miami federal court jury recently determined that Tesla should compensate the deceased’s family and the surviving injured party, awarding $242.5 million out of a total $329 million in damages deemed appropriate.
In their appeal filing, Tesla’s legal team maintains that the Model S had no design flaws, and any alleged design defects could not have caused the accident, which they assert was solely the driver’s fault.
“For as long as drivers remain in control, any safety feature may empower reckless drivers while enhancing safety for a multitude of others,” the appeal states. “Holding Tesla liable for providing drivers with advanced safety features simply because a reckless driver overrode them cannot be reconciled with Florida law.”
Tesla did not respond to requests for further comment.
Brett Schreiber, lead trial counsel for the plaintiffs in this case, stated that he anticipates the court will uphold the initial verdict, which should not be interpreted as “a condemnation of the autonomous vehicle industry, but rather a critique of Tesla’s reckless and unsafe development and deployment of its Autopilot system.”
“The jury considered all facts and reached the correct conclusion that this was a case of shared responsibility,” Schreiber said. “However, this verdict should not disregard the integral role Autopilot and the company’s misrepresentations of its capabilities played in the crash.”