A Florida jury has ordered Tesla to pay $243 million in damages following a deadly 2019 crash involving its Autopilot system, marking a significant legal setback that could invite more lawsuits against the electric vehicle maker, reports Reuters. This verdict highlights ongoing concerns about the safety and limitations of Tesla’s driver assistance technology.

Details of the 2019 Incident

The crash occurred on April 25, 2019, when driver George McGee’s 2019 Model S, traveling at about 62 mph (100 kph), struck a parked Chevrolet Tahoe at an intersection. McGee had bent down to retrieve a dropped cellphone, running a stop sign and red light without receiving alerts from the system. Naibel Benavides Leon, standing beside the SUV, was thrown 75 feet (23 meters) and died, while her former boyfriend Dillon Angulo sustained serious injuries.

Jurors determined Tesla was liable for 33% of the compensatory damages, amounting to $42.6 million, with McGee responsible for the remaining 67%. However, McGee was not a defendant and faces no payment obligation. The total award included $129 million in compensatory damages and $200 million in punitive damages to Benavides Leon’s estate and Angulo.

This case stands out as the first trial involving the wrongful death of a third party linked to Autopilot, according to the plaintiffs’ lawyers. They had sought $345 million in damages.

Jury Finds Defect in Autopilot Design

The decision centered on Autopilot’s design and deployment. Plaintiffs argued that Tesla engineered the system for controlled-access highways but failed to prevent its use on other roads. “Tesla designed Autopilot only for controlled-access highways yet deliberately chose not to restrict drivers from using it elsewhere, alongside Elon Musk telling the world Autopilot drove better than humans,” said Brett Schreiber, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, in a statement.

Experts noted the ruling implies a flaw in the software. “The only way the jury could have possibly ruled against Tesla was by finding a defect with the Autopilot software,” said Philip Koopman, a Carnegie Mellon University engineering professor and expert in autonomous technology. “That’s a big deal.”

Tesla countered that McGee bore full responsibility. “To be clear, no car in 2019, and none today, would have prevented this crash,” the company stated. “This was never about Autopilot; it was a fiction concocted by plaintiffs’ lawyers blaming the car when the driver – from day one – admitted and accepted responsibility.”

Tesla emphasized the verdict hinders safety advancements. “Today’s verdict is wrong and only works to set back automotive safety and jeopardize Tesla’s and the entire industry’s efforts to develop and implement life-saving technology,” the company reportedly said. Tesla plans to appeal.

Broader Implications for EV Safety and Litigation

This outcome could reshape legal landscapes for autonomous driving features in electric vehicles. Tesla has encountered numerous similar lawsuits, often settled or dismissed before trial. In June, a judge denied Tesla’s motion to dismiss this case, paving the way for the verdict.

Experts predict increased litigation. “It’s a big deal,” said Alex Lemann, a law professor at Marquette University. “This is the first time that Tesla has been hit with a judgment in one of the many, many fatalities that have happened as a result of its Autopilot technology.” Such developments may raise settlement costs and scrutiny on Tesla’s claims about Autopilot’s superiority to human drivers.

This raises questions about operational safety for EV owners relying on advanced driver aids. While Autopilot aims to enhance road safety, the jury’s allocation of blame to Tesla suggests gaps in preventing misuse, even when drivers err. Economically, the verdict coincided with a 1.8% drop in Tesla shares on Friday, contributing to a 25% decline this year. Much of Tesla’s nearly $1 trillion market value depends on transitioning to robotics and AI, including robotaxis set for production next year.

For EV enthusiasts, this underscores the need for clear guidelines on using such systems. As Tesla expands its robotaxi ambitions based on upgraded Autopilot software, the ruling may slow investor confidence in fully autonomous capabilities. “Today’s verdict represents justice for Naibel’s tragic death and Dillon’s lifelong injuries,” added Schreiber.

In a Miami federal court, the case signals that juries may hold manufacturers accountable alongside drivers.