A new wrongful death lawsuit filed against Tesla Inc. highlights the ongoing safety crisis surrounding the company’s electronic door handle design, alleging that a couple became trapped in their burning Model 3 after a January 2023 crash in Washington state left one dead and the other seriously injured.

The lawsuit, filed Friday in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (Tacoma), claims that Jeffery and Wendy Dennis were running errands on a Saturday afternoon when their Model 3 “suddenly and rapidly accelerated out of control,” striking a utility pole and bursting into flames, reports Bloomberg. According to court documents, bystanders rushed to help but couldn’t open the vehicle’s doors due to what the complaint describes as Tesla’s “unique and defective door handle design.”

Wendy Dennis died at the scene, while Jeffery Dennis suffered serious injuries including burns to his legs. The lawsuit states that “several good Samaritans even attempted to use a baseball bat to break the car windows to help” the trapped couple.

Pattern of Deadly Door Failures

This latest lawsuit adds to a rapidly growing body of litigation scrutinizing Tesla’s electronic door systems, which require power from the vehicle’s low-voltage battery to operate from the outside. When that battery fails or is disabled in a crash, the flush door handles become inoperable, leaving no mechanical way to open doors from outside the vehicle.

The complaint accuses Tesla of negligence and misleading customers, arguing that the company has long been aware that door handles can become inoperable after crashes and that lithium-ion battery packs pose fire hazards, yet failed to address either issue. It also alleges the Model 3 had a defect causing sudden acceleration and that the automatic emergency braking system failed.

Tesla vehicles include manual interior releases, but their locations vary by model and are often obscured or difficult to find, particularly for rear-seat passengers. In the Model 3 and Model Y, rear releases are hidden under the map pocket; in the Model S, they’re beneath carpet under the back seats; and in the Model X, they’re behind the speaker grille.

Mounting Regulatory Pressure

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) opened an investigation in September into Tesla’s door handle design after receiving reports of exterior handles failing and trapping children and other occupants inside vehicles. The probe initially focused on approximately 174,290 Model Y vehicles from 2021, but the agency indicated it could expand the investigation to other models.

In response to mounting pressure, Tesla’s design chief Franz von Holzhausen told Bloomberg in September that the company is working on a redesign to make door handles “more intuitive for occupants in a panic situation.” However, no timeline has been provided for implementing these changes.

Recent Fatal Incidents

The Washington lawsuit follows several other high-profile cases:

Wisconsin Model S crash (November 2024): Five occupants died after becoming trapped when their vehicle hit a tree and caught fire. A nearby homeowner reported hearing screaming from inside the vehicle for up to five minutes during her 911 call.
California Cybertruck crash (November 2024): Three college students died after their Cybertruck crashed and caught fire in Piedmont. A friend who witnessed the crash repeatedly pressed the electronic door buttons but couldn’t open them, eventually breaking a window with a tree branch to rescue one passenger. The Cybertruck has no exterior handles, relying entirely on electronic buttons that fail when power is lost.
Virginia Model Y fire (December 2023): An off-duty firefighter struggled to rescue occupants from a burning Model Y. The passenger, pinned by airbags and unable to reach the manual release, suffered third-degree facial burns and lasting lung damage.

International Response

While U.S. regulators have been slow to act, authorities in other countries are moving more decisively. China is considering a ban on fully concealed door handles by 2027, and European regulators have implemented stricter post-crash rescue protocols.

The controversy extends beyond Tesla. Ford issued a recall of Mustang Mach-E electric vehicles earlier this year after similar complaints about electronically latching doors that can’t open from outside when the battery dies. Volkswagen also recalled nearly 100,000 ID.4 EVs due to door handle issues, though those involved doors opening unexpectedly rather than failing to open.

Technical Details and Safety Gaps

Tesla’s electronic door system works by sending a signal when the door handle is activated, which then triggers the door release. This allows for sleek, flush designs that improve aerodynamics but creates a single point of failure: the vehicle’s electrical system.

The Model 3 and newer Teslas use a 12-volt low-voltage battery to power interior functions including windows, doors, and the touchscreen, separate from the high-voltage pack that propels the vehicle. When the low-voltage battery fails—which can happen in severe crashes—the electronic door system becomes inoperable.

Current crash testing protocols measure survivability on impact but not whether occupants can escape afterward, leaving a regulatory gap that allows manufacturers to prioritize aesthetics and aerodynamics over evacuation safety.

Implications for EV Industry

The Tesla door handle controversy raises fundamental questions about the balance between innovation and safety in electric vehicle design. While electronic systems can enable sleeker designs and improved efficiency, the incidents demonstrate the critical importance of reliable mechanical failsafes.

For Tesla owners, the situation underscores the importance of familiarizing themselves and all potential passengers with manual release locations. First responders must also be trained on the different manual release systems across Tesla’s model lineup, as every second counts when dealing with lithium-ion battery fires.

The case is Dennis v. Tesla, 3:25-cv-06052, U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington (Tacoma). Tesla did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

EVXL’s Take

As we’ve previously reported on Tesla’s door design power-failure risks and the NHTSA investigation into trapped children, this Washington lawsuit represents not an isolated incident but part of a systemic design flaw that Tesla has known about for years.

The pattern is clear: Tesla prioritized aesthetic innovation and aerodynamic efficiency over fail-safe mechanical systems that could save lives in emergencies. While the company has finally acknowledged the need for a redesign, the lack of a concrete timeline is troubling given the mounting death toll.

What’s particularly concerning is that this January 2023 crash is only now resulting in a lawsuit filed in November 2025—nearly three years later. How many other incidents are still working through the legal system? How many deaths could have been prevented if Tesla had acted decisively when these problems first emerged?

The fundamental question remains: Should design ever come at the cost of life-saving usability? With NHTSA’s investigation ongoing and international regulators taking action, Tesla may soon find that question answered by regulatory mandate rather than voluntary redesign.

For EV owners across all brands, this serves as a critical reminder that cutting-edge technology must never compromise basic safety principles. The ability to escape your vehicle in an emergency isn’t a luxury feature—it’s a fundamental requirement that should never depend on electrical systems that can fail at the worst possible moment.

What are your thoughts on electronic door handles in EVs? Should regulators mandate mechanical fail-safes? Share your perspective in the comments below.