Earlier in the month, a jury reached a landmark and highly consequential decision, holding Tesla partially liable for the tragic death of 22‑year‑old Naibel Benavides. Benavides lost her life when the driver of a Tesla Model S struck both her and her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo, in a devastating crash. The court ordered Tesla to provide the victims’ families with a combined $243 million in both compensatory and punitive damages—a judgment that was described as extraordinary, particularly given Tesla’s history of successfully distancing itself from direct liability in incidents involving its partially autonomous driving technology. In many prior cases, the company had avoided substantial legal responsibility by framing accidents as the sole fault of drivers rather than as a consequence of the software’s limitations.
In response to this ruling, Tesla’s legal team swiftly submitted filings challenging the verdict. The attorneys argued that the entirety of responsibility lay with the driver of the Model S, not with Tesla or its technology. Accordingly, they urged the court either to invalidate the jury’s determination entirely or, at the very least, to mandate a new trial with a different jury panel. Their filing emphasized a central contention: that the judgment of $243 million not only contravenes foundational principles of Florida tort law but also runs afoul of constitutional protections under the Due Process Clause, while defying reason and impartial judgment. Tesla’s lawyers underscored that the driver, identified as McGee, had actively pressed the accelerator pedal in the fleeting seconds before the collision, an action that disengaged Autopilot and asserted the driver’s full control. To illustrate their point, counsel noted that automobile manufacturers cannot reasonably be expected to act as global insurers, bearing financial liability for reckless or negligent behavior by individuals operating their cars.
The company’s attorneys further contested several aspects of the trial proceedings, claiming procedural errors that unfairly prejudiced Tesla in the eyes of the jury. Specifically, they argued that the plaintiffs should never have been permitted to introduce certain public statements made by Tesla’s Chief Executive Officer, Elon Musk. Musk has, on numerous occasions, openly portrayed Tesla vehicles as being capable of higher levels of autonomy and self-driving sophistication than regulators and experts generally recognize. According to the defense, including Musk’s comments served only to bias the jury, suggesting a misleading narrative of overpromised capabilities. Additionally, Tesla’s lawyers rejected claims that the company engaged in a data cover‑up. Plaintiffs had asserted that Tesla withheld crash‑related camera footage from law enforcement investigators; however, Tesla’s counsel characterized this accusation as completely unfounded and inflammatory. They insisted that such allegations poisoned the jury’s perception of the company, thereby contributing unjustly to the harsh outcome against Tesla.
The formal motion was filed by attorneys from Gibson Dunn, a prestigious law firm with an extensive history of handling high‑profile corporate litigation. Notably, this same firm previously defended Tesla in disputes involving intellectual property theft, such as litigation brought against a former employee and a technology startup accused of misappropriating proprietary robotic‑hand designs. By retaining Gibson Dunn, Tesla has signaled both the seriousness with which it views the current case and its determination to challenge legal claims that might set a dangerous precedent for future liability in the rapidly developing field of autonomous driving technology.
Sourse: https://www.theverge.com/news/768068/tesla-wrongful-death-verdict-court-toss
