Miami Jury Finds Tesla Liable For Deadly Crash — Awards $329 Million In Damages

---

---

It was a truly horrific accident. On the night of April 25, 2019, George McGee, a resident of Key Largo, Florida, was driving his 2019 Tesla Model S on a secondary road near his home. That road ended at a T intersection with Card Sound Road. At that intersection were a stop sign and a red flashing blinker. One the other side of the intersection were four large red reflectors mounted on metal poles and a yellow sign with a large double-ended black arrow pointing to the left and the right.

McGee had activated the Autopilot system in his car and set it to go 45 mph — the speed limit on that road. Later, he pressed the accelerator and increased the speed of the car to 62 mph. Then he dropped his phone. While he was searching for it, the car came to that T intersection and sailed through it without slowing down. It then crashed into a Chevy Tahoe, forcing it into two people who were standing nearby, killing one and severely injuring the other.

The estate of the deceased sued Tesla, claiming the Autopilot system should have detected the T intersection and slowed the car or brought it to a halt. In response, attorneys for Tesla said that once the driver manually pushed the accelerator, that action overrode most of the forward collision and emergency braking features of the Autopilot system. In addition, they said the driver was 100 percent at fault, since searching for your phone in a dark car on a dark night instead of paying attention to the road ahead is clearly negligent behavior.

Punitive Damages

Prior to the trial, Miami US District Court judge Beth Bloom ruled the plaintiff could ask the jury to award punitive damages — a sum of money designed to punish a person or a corporation for bad behavior. Punitive damages are a way of sending a signal to others to clean up their act, legally speaking, if they don’t want to suffer a similar fate.

When I first wrote about this trial a month ago, I offered my opinion that Tesla would find a way to settle this case before trial rather than run the risk of a jury verdict. A wealthy, faceless corporation is always at a disadvantage in front of a jury. Not only that, the Tesla Autopilot software has been controversial since the first day it was released, largely because the company itself has suggested it might be capable of doing things it cannot. In some instances, the name itself has been deemed misleading.

Nevertheless, Tesla decided to roll the dice in the Miami case — which goes to show how good I am at predicting such things. After a two-week trial, which included testimony from experts about what Autopilot can and cannot do, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. It found the driver was ⅔ responsible for the collision and Tesla was ⅓ responsible. It awarded the plaintiff actual damages of $129 million and punitive damages of $200 million.

In a statement shared with CleanTechnica via email,  Brett Schreiber, the lead attorney for the estate of the deceased woman, said: “Tesla designed autopilot only for controlled access highways yet deliberately chose not to restrict drivers from using it elsewhere, alongside Elon Musk telling the world Autopilot drove better than humans.

“Tesla’s lies turned our roads into test tracks for their fundamentally flawed technology, putting everyday Americans like Naibel Benavides and Dillon Angulo in harm’s way. Today’s verdict represents justice for Naibel’s tragic death and Dillon’s lifelong injuries, holding Tesla and Musk accountable for propping up the company’s trillion dollar valuation with self-driving hype at the expense of human lives.”

Tesla Will Appeal

That is not the end of the road, of course. Judges have the power to amend jury awards if they believe they are unreasonably large or small, based on the evidence. In addition, Tesla can appeal the verdict and has already indicated it intends to do precisely that. In a statement reported by the New York Times, the company said,

“Today’s verdict is wrong and only works to set back automotive safety and jeopardize Tesla’s and the entire industry’s efforts to develop and implement lifesaving technology. Florida law is explicit that punitive damages have been all but eliminated in product liability cases such as this one. We are confident that the punitive damage award at a minimum, and likely this whole verdict, will be overturned by the appellate court.”

And maybe it will be. As anyone who has read books by John Grisham knows, getting a jury verdict is just the first step in a long process. The 11th Circuit US Court of Appeals will hear any appeal, usually by a three-judge panel. If any party feels aggrieved by what that tribunal decides, it can request a review by all 12 members of the court. If that doesn’t get the result desired, the US Supreme Court could be the final arbiter of what constitutes justice in this case.

Not all appeals are automatic. The 11th Circuit must first be convinced there is something amiss with the trial court’s decision. If it agrees to hear the appeal, it can send the case back to the trial judge to correct mistakes or order a new trial. Review by all the members of an appeals court are rarely granted and the Supreme Court is besieged by appeals requests, which means it can only agree to hear a tiny portion of them. The upshot is that the plaintiff in this case could celebrate several birthdays before seeing a dime of the money the jury awarded.

Some of you may wonder where the driver, George McGee, stands in all this. He has already settled with the plaintiff, which probably means his auto insurance carrier offered the policy limit without too much of a fight. When your insured admits he was looking about for his phone when his car barreled through an intersection and killed a young woman who was an innocent bystander, you don’t have much of a chance in front of a jury.

First Federal Trial For Tesla

For CleanTechnica readers, what is important to know is that this was the first federal jury trial stemming from a fatal accident involving Autopilot. Tesla has won at least one similar case that was filed in a state court in California and settled several others. At least five more are pending, the New York Times reports.

Many people, both in and out of the auto industry, have questioned how appropriate it is to offer something called Autopilot when the actual product requires constant human supervision. While the company, during the trial in Miami, was at pains to point out all the cautionary language contained in the car’s owner’s manual, McGee told the jury he never really studied that material and had the impression the car would not do something outrageously dangerous like speeding through a clearly marked intersection without slowing or braking.

No doubt our readers will have a variety of opinions about the verdict and are welcome to share them with us. Putting aside the money — Was it excessive? Was it too little? — the result of this trial that matters most is that a jury of 12 ordinary Americans have listened to the evidence and concluded the Tesla Autopilot system is something less than what the name and marketing imply. That could embolden others involved in instances of cars on Autopilot behaving badly to pursue their claims in court.

This case is a crack in the facade of invincibility that has surrounded Tesla since Autopilot was first introduced. It could influence decisions involving semi-autonomous driving systems from Tesla and other manufacturers both in the US and in other countries. Tesla may be successful on appeal but that may not matter. The impact this case will have on the future of ADAS technology is ultimately why this case is important.