A magistrate has found credible evidence indicating that Elon Musk and other high-ranking officials at Tesla were cognizant of the flaws in the company’s self-driving technology yet still permitted the vehicles to operate in an unsafe manner, as per a recent ruling delivered in Florida.
Judge Reid Scott of the Palm Beach County circuit court stated that there was proof indicating that Tesla had a marketing strategy that portrayed their products as autonomous and that Musk’s public statements about the technology had a significant impact on how the products were perceived.
This ruling, reported by Reuters on Wednesday, paves the way for a legal case concerning a fatal accident in 2019 near Miami involving a Tesla Model 3. The car collided with an 18-wheeler truck that had suddenly turned onto the road in the path of the driver, Stephen Banner, resulting in the Tesla’s roof being ripped off and Banner’s death.
Banner’s widow filed the lawsuit, alleging that the company engaged in intentional misconduct and gross negligence, potentially subjecting Tesla to punitive damages. This ruling follows Tesla’s victories in two product liability cases earlier this year in California related to purported defects in its Autopilot system.
Judge Scott also determined that Banner’s wife, the plaintiff, should have the opportunity to argue to jurors that Tesla’s warnings in its manuals and “clickwrap” agreements were insufficient. He pointed out that the accident bore striking similarities to a 2016 fatal crash involving Joshua Brown, where the Autopilot system failed to detect approaching trucks.
The judge wrote, “It would be logical to infer that the Defendant Tesla, under the direction of its CEO and engineers, was fully aware of the issue with the ‘Autopilot’ system’s failure to detect cross traffic.”
Banner’s lawyer, Lake “Trey” Lytal III, expressed satisfaction with the outcome based on the evidence of wrongful behavior.
In addition, the judge referenced a 2016 video depicting a Tesla vehicle operating without human intervention as a means to promote Autopilot. At the start of the video, there was a disclaimer stating that the person in the driver’s seat was only present for legal reasons. “The car is autonomously driving,” the disclaimer indicated.
Judge Scott observed that the video did not hint at it being aspirational or that the technology shown was not currently available in the market.
subsequent to newsletter promotion
Bryant Walker Smith, a law professor at the University of South Carolina, informed Reuters that the magistrate’s review of the evidence was notable as it suggests ‘unsettling contradictions’ between what Tesla internally acknowledged and what it conveyed in its marketing.
Smith remarked, “This verdict sets the stage for a public trial where the magistrate appears inclined to admit numerous testimonies and evidence that could be potentially embarrassing for Tesla and its CEO. Consequently, the outcome of such a trial may result in a judgment involving punitive damages.”
