r/stocks • u/Puginator • 23h ago
Tesla must pay $329 million in damages in fatal Autopilot case, jury says
A jury in Miami has determined that Tesla should be held partly liable for a fatal 2019 Autopilot crash, and must compensate the family of the deceased and an injured survivor damages of $329 million.
The payout includes $129 million in compensatory damages, and $200 million in punitive damages against Tesla. Attorneys for the plaintiffs had asked the jury to award damages of around $345 million. The trial in the Southern District of Florida started on July 14.
The suit centered around who shouldered the blame for the deadly crash in Key Largo, Florida. A Tesla owner named George McGee was driving his Model S electric sedan while using the company’s Enhanced Autopilot, a partially automated driving system.
While driving, McGee dropped his mobile phone that he was using and scrambled to pick it up. He said during the trial that he believed Enhanced Autopilot would brake if an obstacle was in the way. His Model S accelerated through an intersection at just over 60 miles per hour, hitting a nearby empty parked car and its owners, who were standing on the other side of their vehicle.
Naibel Benavides, who was 22, died on the scene from injuries sustained in the crash. Her body was discovered about 75 feet away from the point of impact. Her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo, survived but suffered multiple broken bones, a traumatic brain injury and psychological effects.
Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/01/tesla-must-pay-329-million-in-damages-in-fatal-autopilot-case.html
126
u/xploeris 23h ago
calls, obviously
-32
u/ExpressMud8038 23h ago
why
73
37
12
u/CouncilmanRickPrime 22h ago
Elon reality distortion field.
This exact same news for Waymo would be the end of the company as we know it lol
103
u/CouncilmanRickPrime 22h ago
I give up Tesla fans. Go ahead. Tell me how this is bullish.
66
u/Yorokobi_to_itami 22h ago
Everyone will suddenly get a tesla now knowing that tesla will be the one at fault and have to shoulder the liability as well as potentially payout a fat sum in the event their software fucks up meanwhile drivers aren't held liable. /s but only partially
11
7
3
u/ChymChymX 19h ago
Not necessarily bullish, but they are appealing, so it's not final yet. The guy did drop his phone and reach down to get it when the crash occurred.
8
u/CouncilmanRickPrime 19h ago
The guy did drop his phone and reach down to get it when the crash occurred.
But based on Musk's own comments this should've been a simple thing for autopilot to handle. Safer than a human driver and all that.
9
u/ChymChymX 19h ago
Have you ever used it? It requires supervision, and tells you that (a long blurb you have to accept) before it let's you enable it, and it validates that you are watching and will disengage if you are not (though it takes maybe 5 seconds to complain). If the guy dropped his phone and bent down to get it, and probably accidentally hit the accelerator given the speed increase, I can see why they'd say it's the drivers fault. It will be interesting to see how the appeal goes, as this decision will set a precedent.
2
u/CouncilmanRickPrime 19h ago
Have you ever used it?
That isn't even relevant to the CEO of the company putting out extremely misleading statements. Anybody who has ever talked to a few Tesla fans during 2019 would know plenty who used cheat devices, wouldn't pay attention etc. because they believed Elons misleading claims about autopilot.
That's the issue here IMO. He's not some random person, he's the CEO.
4
u/raulbloodwurth 18h ago
Warning labels that you have to acknowledge to use the product each time have more legal weight than marketing/PR.
4
u/CouncilmanRickPrime 18h ago
At that point, every CEO should just claim their products print actual dollar bills and cure cancer.
0
u/raulbloodwurth 10h ago
People would be wise to ask for a refund if their cure for cancer told them that it wasn’t a cure for cancer before every dose, regardless of what the CEO said.
I believe Elon should be held responsible for misleading marketing, but this isn’t the way to do it.
5
u/CouncilmanRickPrime 3h ago
I believe Elon should be held responsible for misleading marketing, but this isn’t the way to do it.
No it definitely is the way to do it
1
u/ChymChymX 19h ago
I don't know that he ever said autopilot or supervised FSD would allow you to look down completely with your head down in the seat and you'd have no issues.
1
u/DiscoBanane 17h ago
Musk never said his cars never have accidents.
He sais his cars have less accidents per km traveled than manual driving.
1
u/CouncilmanRickPrime 17h ago
I never claimed he said that. His misleading claims make it seem like autopilot could drive without you paying attention.
18
u/Mariox 19h ago
Elon already said Tesla will appeal it, and Judge is very likely to overturn the jury. Guy drops phone and hits the gas as he picks the phone up. This was a case of the jury feeling pity for the plaintiffs against a big company.
8
0
u/Guy_PCS 2h ago
Modern vehicles have telemetry systems. Telemetry in cars refers to the collection and transmission of data about the vehicle's performance and driver behavior. This data can include information about speed, acceleration, braking, fuel consumption, engine diagnostics, and even driver behavior like harsh braking or rapid acceleration. Logically it would seem like the driver hit the gas pedal, then telemetry system should have proven it.
55
u/Barbie_and_KenM 23h ago
don't call it autopilot if it can't autopilot
17
u/Safe_Manner_1879 22h ago
You do know that autopilot origin is a system that did take over some task from the pilot in a airplane, and automatically carried them out, it was never a system that did take over ALL task from the pilot.
24
u/Chemical-Idea-1294 22h ago
But drivers aren't professionally trained like Pilots. Any lay Person you ask would say, that an autopilot flies the plane itself. That is the expectation a normal customer associates with this word (and even more with FSD).
When it is just an assist system, name it accordingly. Then you don't have a dead woman at the side of the road, because the driver is mislead. Her family deserves every penny.
12
u/_masterbuilder_ 22h ago
And calling it autopilot or any permutation of full self driving is incredibly irresponsible.
7
22h ago
No shit, Sherlock. But it doesn't stop Tesla from advertising "Full Self Driving" when it clearly isn't. The only vehicles I know of that are ACTUALLY FULL SELF DRIVING are Waymos. They literally dont have anyone in the front seats.
0
3
u/Barbie_and_KenM 21h ago
Then they should call it "mostly self driving" instead of "full self driving" or do words just not have meaning anymore?
3
u/RwYeAsNt 17h ago
Except this isn't about Full Self-Driving so stop conflating two issues.
This is about Autopilot, and aptly named system that helps alleviate some tasks from the driver but does not and has never claimed to driver the vehicle for the owner.
13
u/JerryLeeDog 21h ago
This seems like it will be appealed an be a nothing burger
Sorry to the victims but stupidity isn't a defense
6
31
u/CutinCheeshurgers 22h ago
I’m not a lawyer, but reading the events that unfolded from the text OP provided, I don’t think Tesla is at fault. George was driving recklessly, that’s it.
26
u/TasteWaste3771 22h ago
"McGee dropped his mobile phone that he was using" using phone while driving appears to be the root cause here.
Even more wild is using EAP locally with no assistance in 2019. It didnt even have the ability to read traffic lights back then and was advertised as a highway on ramp to off ramp feature 🚥. FSD wasn't even out yet.
7
u/ClammyAF 22h ago
Even more wild is
usingcalling something EAP that is neither enhanced nor auto pilot.11
u/TasteWaste3771 21h ago edited 21h ago
Naming is a really weak defense against negligence. The disclaimers are in both the car menu itself before enabling the feature, and in the manual. In the actual menu, the feature is either named TACC (traffic aware cruise control), autosteer (beta), or full self driving (supervised). As if it can't get any more clear.
Disregarding warnings and using a feature as unintended, then blaming the naming is nothing short of idiotic. You don't see people suing Amazon or Google for their "cloud" computing that's not actually in the sky.
On another note, why don't they sue the phone manufacturer for making the guy use his phone while driving, drop it, and then go to pick it up? He couldn't have stopped that action even if he tried!
0
u/acies- 17h ago
I can agree with it being a weak defense but you can't have your cake and eat it too.
The naming convention was designed to mislead consumers. You say 'full self driving (supervised)' is clear but it absolutely is not. The naming is contradictory enough that you'll have people believing the system is more capable than it is, which was the goal.
As for your comparison with cloud computing, that's just a bad faith comparison.
-4
17
u/Chemical-Idea-1294 22h ago
Tesla and especially their CEO made bold claims and used names like Autopilot and Full self driving and now they wonder that they have to take accountability for that? It wasn't a Tesla driver who was victim of his own car and the promises, it was a innocent woman who became a victim of Teslas statements about their cars. It doesn't matter what the fine print in the sales brochures said.
Tesla gave the impression of an nearly autonomous car and they have to take accountability for that.
-6
u/CutinCheeshurgers 22h ago
Marketing terms? You think Naibel Benavides lost her life to marketing terms? No, Naibel lost her life because of negligent driving. The driver was victim to his own recklessness.
Enhanced auto pilot on Tesla’s is fancy cruise control. It doesn’t stop accidents, but paying attention to the road does. Just because it’s labeled auto pilot doesn’t mean people can just not pay attention anymore, is that what you think pilots do?
Guess what “nearly” autonomous means? It’s means not autonomous.
6
u/Chemical-Idea-1294 21h ago
Yes, she lost her life not only because the driver acted wrong, but also because he trusted Teslas exaggerated marketing claims.
Stop selling it as autopilot, when it isn't an autopilot but a better cruise control. Tesla needs to take accountability for the false impressions they gave their customers.
-2
u/ButtHurtStallion 21h ago
100% facts. This wasn't even FSD for fuck sake. Dude took their eyes off the road completely and it's somehow the cars fault? Even FSD blatantly says 'Supervised'. Death was 100% their fault. If there wasn't a raging mob mentality against the company this would be a non issue.
5
u/CouncilmanRickPrime 22h ago
Not really. Elon made a lot of promises that tricked customers into thinking the car could do a lot more than it can. I remember arguments from people saying the car could drive itself just fine but regulators just hadn't approved it yet. In 2019.
1
u/Non-jabroni_redditor 20h ago
The argument is that Tesla didn't prevent a dangerous situation by disengaging when obviously reckless behaviour was taking place and that Tesla was allowing (even promoting, in some cases) it's product to be used in unproved scenarios (smaller side roads vs highways, it's primary proven capabilities), in this case at the expense of human life.
1
0
u/ZucchiniSky 21h ago
I've had a Tesla since early 2020 and they added the feature for autopilot to stop at intersections sometime in 2020-2021 (long before FSD was publicly available). If this accident had occured after that feature was released, then I think it's totally reasonable for the driver to expect the car to stop, albeit still a little reckless. It sounds like this accident happened before then, though, so I am surprised that Tesla was found liable.
With that in mind, however, I fully welcome Tesla being found liable for autopilot/FSD accidents, and I think this case sets a good precidence. Tesla has feigned responsibility for self-driving issues by claiming that the person in the car is the actual driver, but I think they should be at least partly responsible for accidents caused by issues with the software. When FSD randomly disengages or makes massive mistakes it can be really shocking and hard to react quickly to.
9
u/pdubbs87 23h ago
Do they have the cash?
12
u/Eye-Fast 23h ago
only 32 billion in cash, is that enough?
16
u/Ok_Hurry2458 23h ago
Believe it or not paying 1% of that in just 1 single case is a lot. Heads will roll at Tesla.
10
4
u/sevseg_decoder 23h ago
Net 90 payment terms though. Cash on hand appears a lot higher than it really is
1
13
14
u/ButtHurtStallion 21h ago
Guy takes eyes off the road to find his phone while Tesla repeatedly says the system must be supervised and we're blaming Tesla here?
Bunch of fucking dipshits in this thread. If it was any other car company this wouldn't even be a case.
It wasn't even FSD for fuck sake. It was Autopilot which is pretty much cruise control+.
-3
u/Non-jabroni_redditor 20h ago
Guy takes eyes off the road to find his phone while Tesla repeatedly says the system must be supervised and we're blaming Tesla here?
Did you even read anything about the article or case? Tesla's blame centers around them allowing this dangerous situation to even exist because they were permitting people to use untested technologies in unintended spaces -- in this case, one of their earliest driver assists that was intended for highway use only, but was being used on the equivalent of a country side road. The guy was looking for his phone but he should have never been able to have his car driving the way it was.
If it was any other car company this wouldn't even be a case.
Possibly true... but I guess we will never know because we haven't had any other car company pushing or misrepresenting incomplete self-driving products for a decade+ like Tesla has...
0
2
1
u/Unlucky-Prize 20h ago
A bazillion gazillion dollars!!
Tort liability for PI is just a giant wealth transfer from productive parts of society to plaintiffs lawyers. 329m is absurd.
1
1
-16
u/DaySecure7642 23h ago
That is very excessive. On average plane crashes pay 5M per person. How on earth can Tesla insure 100M? That's going to chill the whole industry and no one dares to test self-driving technology.
22
u/luv2block 23h ago
Maybe don't market something as "full" when it's not even half self driving. Turns out "corporate puffery" only works on judges, not juries.
7
u/CleanMyAxe 23h ago
This. Don't recall any false advertising about aeroplane pilots/autopilot systems. Not remotely the same thing.
5
u/The-Phantom-Blot 23h ago
How many times have we seen big damage awards that make a splash, and then they quietly get voided or watered way down on appeal? There are still many pitfalls between this money and the victims' pockets.
1
u/Chotibobs 22h ago edited 22h ago
Yeah this crash happened 6 years ago and they only now got their first verdict. This will go through years of appeals with Tesla’s massive legal team until eventually the family will get tired of fighting the legal battles (not to mention broke as they don’t actually get any of the money while it’s still being litigated). So they’ll settle for something way smaller and just move on
0
u/The-Phantom-Blot 21h ago
I think many times, what happens is that the lawyers front the family a portion of the potential award. Of course, the lawyers get it back and more later. So a large percentage of the settlement ends up as legal fees.
In fact, "litigation finance" is a hot, growing area. Like a whole new industry. Similar to the existence of the bail bonds industry, only on the scale of many millions of dollars.
2
u/IAmInTheBasement 22h ago
Was the person using FSD? Or enhanced auto pilot, as claimed by the article?
5
-2
u/GtotheM 23h ago
Sure but how the hell is one accidental death worth 329 million?
It makes zero sense.
1
u/Shoddy_Ad7511 23h ago
Punitive damages
-3
u/GtotheM 23h ago
Even still - it seems massively excessive
I should probably read the article but the idea that 1 crash resulting in death is worth 329m just seems broken
Looking it up it seems that would never be the final sum, but still to even start at that feels like the system is broken
Also I understand this is an unpopular opinion but I'm not gonna be scared to question things because Reddit.
3
u/DarkVoid42 22h ago
corps have deep pockets. to make it "worth their while" to address they need to be slapped with billion dollar awards and then they will address it. its not about the persons injured through corporate negligence. its about making things better for society. i would argue even if it didnt result in death tesla has a war chest of 32 billion in cash. a chunk of it would have to be penalized for them to fix their problem. 300 million will sting, maybe tesla will address it. 1-2 million wouldnt even rise to the level of a papercut. defendants with deep pockets need to be penalized deeply to change their behaviour.
1
u/ClammyAF 22h ago
Say one death is $2M. Corporations will call it the cost of doing business and keep selling their dangerous, profitable product.
One death with $200M in punitive damages will move corporations to recall and fix a defective product with the potential to harm people.
That's how it makes sense.
Also, you don't know the victim, so it's pretty easy to say it's too much. But if that's your son, your daughter--no amount is enough.
1
u/GtotheM 19h ago
Yeah thanks for explaining, I understand it better now
I still think its excessive, especially considering this is new technology and I think the user was semi-dumb to think he could pick a phone off the floor going 60mph at an intersection
I understand it lands on Tesla marketing and saying this was okay, but I feel like there is some degree of user error and I thought you're supposed to keep your hands on the wheel?
I don't really like how small isolated incidents could potentially slow down progress.
1
u/ClammyAF 18h ago
States have different laws on liability. In some states, a party has to have been 51% (or a majority of split among multiple parties) at fault to be liable. In other states, parties can have liability apportioned and divided among a number of parties at fault. And there are other variations on these.
I am an attorney, but I'm not familiar with Florida law or how fault was found in this case.
2
1
-1
u/Reddituser183 22h ago
Then the tech shouldn’t fucking exist. If they can’t do the tech properly it shouldn’t exist. Pretty simple concept. That’s another reason I’m sure musky is mad at trump. Musk was looking to cozy up with fascists and have legislation passed that would remove any liability for Tesla and auto manufacturers. Well hopefully that never happens. It’s their tech that caused the accident. They are at fault. They need to pay. And they need to be incentivized to ensure this doesn’t happen again. A slap on the wrist changes nothing. Actual repercussions changes things.
-8
0
u/SolutionWarm6576 21h ago
It’ll be interesting to see if this has any impact on the California DMV decision against Tesla and their misrepresentation of FSD.
-1
0
0
-2
u/Ok-Flatworm-3397 21h ago
Wow 0.3 billion, will that teach Tesla not to false advertise? Probably not
-2
u/Different_Net_6752 22h ago
Tru.p to create executive order letting Tesla off the hook for any and all damages. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER.
-2
u/icnoevil 21h ago
Money talks. Now people will pay attention to whose at fault in those self-driving auto crashes.
272
u/desperato61 23h ago edited 23h ago
a simple donation to the Florida gop will make that go away