Attorneys representing Tesla mounted an aggressive challenge to last month’s extraordinary jury decision, which had ordered the electric vehicle manufacturer to pay $242.5 million in damages for its alleged role in a tragic 2019 crash in Florida. In an extensive motion filed in federal court in Miami, the company’s legal team argued that the judgment was not only legally unsound but also profoundly inconsistent with fundamental principles of tort law in Florida, the protections enshrined in the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause, and, in their words, basic logic. Tesla’s lawyers insisted that such a verdict should be overturned in its entirety.
In their filing, Tesla’s representatives stated emphatically that upholding such a massive monetary award could have far-reaching and damaging implications. They contended that leaving the verdict intact would create a chilling effect on innovation, particularly in the realm of road safety technologies, by frightening manufacturers away from introducing new safety-enhancing features out of fear of disproportionate and unpredictable liabilities. According to them, this would ultimately harm—not improve—public safety.
Central to Tesla’s position is the argument that accountability for the fatal accident should rest squarely with the driver of the vehicle, George McGee, rather than with Tesla’s Autopilot system. Court filings emphasized that McGee’s reckless conduct—rather than any design defect in the 2019 Model S or its driver-assistance software—was the true cause of the crash. According to testimony, the young driver was distracted after dropping his cellphone while on a call. As he reached down to retrieve it, his car veered uncontrollably, ultimately colliding with an SUV in Key Largo, outside of which stood Naibel Benavides Leon and her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo. The collision killed Leon instantly and left Angulo with serious injuries. Tesla’s attorneys underscored this narrative, remarking that for as long as cars have existed, irresponsible and self-absorbed drivers have been responsible for devastating outcomes, and manufacturers cannot be expected to guarantee safety against every instance of such behavior.
The jury, however, reached a different conclusion. In a trial that stretched across three intensive weeks, the panel found Tesla partially liable, allocating 33% of responsibility to the automaker while holding McGee accountable for the remainder. In their decision, jurors awarded a staggering sum to the victims and their families: $129 million in compensatory damages designed to cover tangible losses such as medical costs and emotional suffering, and an additional $200 million in punitive damages intended to punish and deter misconduct. While McGee had previously reached a confidential settlement with the plaintiffs, Tesla was ultimately ordered to shoulder the full burden of the punitive damages, along with a third of the compensatory portion, bringing its liability to $242.5 million. This represented a dramatic and highly publicized setback for both Tesla and its signature Autopilot system, which plaintiffs alleged contained design flaws and was active at the time of the crash.
Tesla’s lawyers now maintain that the verdict was tainted by what they describe as misleading tactics employed by the plaintiffs’ attorneys. They assert that the court proceedings were overshadowed by a flood of evidence that, in their view, was irrelevant, prejudicial, and designed more to sway emotions than to illuminate facts. For instance, the plaintiffs’ team allegedly devoted significant attention to whether Tesla had adequately preserved data from the Model S after the accident—a line of argument Tesla’s lawyers dismissed as immaterial, given independent experts confirmed the data had been neither corrupted nor erased. On the contrary, those same records had provided substantial technical insights for the plaintiffs’ own case.
Tesla further took issue with how comments made by its chief executive, Elon Musk, were introduced and emphasized during the trial. The company argued that many of Musk’s public statements about Autopilot’s reliability and safety were used by the plaintiffs to paint an unfairly damning picture, despite having little direct relevance to the specific circumstances of the Key Largo collision. Their filings claimed these rhetorical tactics improperly colored jurors’ perceptions and introduced prejudice into the decision-making process.
In testimony during the proceedings, McGee himself described his understanding of Autopilot as akin to having a “copilot”—a digital assistant that managed steering, acceleration, braking, and lane changes. The plaintiffs relied upon this perception, citing Musk’s prior statements, to build their case that Tesla’s portrayal of Autopilot contributed to drivers placing undue trust in the system, thereby creating unsafe conditions. Tesla, however, continues to argue that the technology functions only as an assistive system that requires drivers’ constant oversight, not as a substitute for human responsibility.
The dispute has extended beyond the courtroom battles to the public arena. Theodore Boutrous, Tesla’s appellate attorney from the prominent legal firm Gibson Dunn, released a statement declaring that verdicts such as this, which he characterized as misguided and unconstitutional, endanger not only Tesla but also the broader trajectory of technological progress. Boutrous warned that penalizing companies in this manner discourages them from implementing forward-looking enhancements that could, in a properly fostered environment, improve roadway safety and save lives. He noted that the Florida jury’s decision was an outlier and asserted confidence that it would ultimately be corrected on appeal.
On the other side, the legal counsel for the plaintiffs offered an entirely different perspective. Brett Schreiber, representing the family of Benavides Leon and Dillon Angulo, contended that Tesla’s attempt to overturn or reduce the jury’s award exemplified the company and its CEO’s ongoing disregard for the human consequences of technology they deemed to be flawed. In his view, the court’s decision was not about condemning the entire autonomous vehicle industry but specifically about holding Tesla accountable for what he described as the reckless and unsafe introduction of Autopilot into the consumer market. Schreiber expressed confidence that the verdict would stand and argued that it underscored the necessity for manufacturers to balance innovation with responsibility for public safety.
As matters presently stand, Tesla has asked the court either to vacate the judgment entirely, significantly reduce the awarded damages, or grant a new trial. The ultimate outcome of this dispute will not only carry immense financial implications for the company but may also set a critical precedent in how courts address the complex tensions between technological innovation, corporate accountability, and consumer safety in the rapidly evolving sphere of autonomous driving.
Sourse: https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-motion-verdict-deadly-autopilot-crash-case-2025-9
