Tesla Model 3 Lawsuit: ‘Computer on Wheels’ Crash Left Woman Dead, Rescuers Locked Out

A wrongful death lawsuit filed in federal court alleges a 2018 Tesla Model 3 “suddenly and rapidly accelerated out of control” before crashing into a utility pole and bursting into flames, killing one occupant while bystanders struggled to open the car’s electronic doors to rescue the trapped couple.

The lawsuit, filed November 21 in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, describes the Model 3 as a “computer on wheels” and claims that multiple safety systems failed simultaneously during the January 7, 2023 crash in Tacoma. We’ve been tracking Tesla’s door handle safety crisis for months, but this case uniquely combines two separate federal investigations into a single deadly incident.

Jeffery Dennis and his wife Wendy Dennis, 52, were traveling west on South 56th Street when the vehicle allegedly accelerated without driver input for at least five seconds, reaching speeds witnesses estimated at 50 to 60 mph. The lawsuit claims the automatic emergency braking system failed to engage, and Jeffery Dennis swerved to avoid hitting other vehicles before striking the pole.

Wendy Dennis died from multiple blunt-force injuries. Jeffery Dennis was severely injured, suffering burns when rescuers couldn’t reach the couple in time.

Multiple Defects Alleged in Single Crash

The complaint, first reported by The News Tribune, alleges a cascade of failures that turned a survivable crash into a fatal one:

The lawsuit describes Tesla’s door handles as requiring battery power to operate from the outside. In a crash, that power is designed to shut off, leaving rescuers with no way to open doors unless they know about hidden manual releases or break through the windows.

“Potential rescuers expect to be able to open the car’s doors with the handles,” the complaint states. “Unless they have been specifically trained about Tesla’s electric door latch design, they wouldn’t know that the only way to get into the car is to break a window.”

Good Samaritans who rushed to help attempted to break the Model 3’s windows with a baseball bat as flames spread. The growing fire forced would-be rescuers to distance themselves before emergency crews arrived several minutes later.

The “Computer on Wheels” Problem

The lawsuit’s characterization of the Model 3 as a “computer on wheels” cuts to the heart of a fundamental question about modern EVs: What happens when software controls life-critical systems that used to be purely mechanical?

“These bugs are serious enough when located in a stationary box on a user’s desk,” the filing states. “They are magnified exponentially when a computer controls a more than two-ton moving machine capable of accelerating from 0 to 60 miles per hour in under five seconds.”

The complaint alleges that sudden and uncommanded acceleration has been a problem across every Tesla model line. It also claims Tesla designed the Model 3’s automatic emergency braking system to deactivate when a driver takes evasive action, including pressing the accelerator pedal, which would defeat the system’s purpose during an unintended acceleration event.

Two Federal Investigations Converge

This lawsuit is unusual because it implicates two separate NHTSA investigations simultaneously.

The agency reopened its investigation into sudden unintended acceleration in July 2023 after researcher Dr. Ronald Belt submitted a petition alleging a design flaw in Tesla’s inverter could cause random voltage spikes that the vehicle’s systems would misinterpret as accelerator pedal input. That investigation covers approximately 1.8 million Tesla vehicles.

NHTSA had previously denied a 2020 petition on the same issue, concluding that all SUA incidents were caused by “pedal misapplication,” meaning drivers pressed the wrong pedal. But Belt’s petition presented new technical evidence suggesting the car’s own diagnostics could be fooled into recording false accelerator inputs, which would explain why Tesla’s vehicle logs consistently blamed drivers.

Separately, NHTSA opened an investigation in September 2025 into Tesla’s electronic door handles after receiving reports of children becoming trapped in vehicles when exterior handles failed. That probe initially covered 174,290 Model Y vehicles from 2021 but has since expanded.

In November 2025, NHTSA ordered Tesla to provide comprehensive records on door handles, door latches, 12-volt batteries, and related software by December 10, 2025. The agency warned of potential fines up to $139 million for incomplete responses.

Tesla’s Response

Tesla did not respond to inquiries from The News Tribune about the lawsuit. The company has historically maintained that its vehicles function as designed and that SUA incidents result from driver error.

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

The case is Dennis v. Tesla, 3:25-cv-06052, U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington (Tacoma). The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for medical expenses, lost wages, wrongful death, and other claims.

EVXL’s Take

This lawsuit crystallizes everything we’ve been reporting about Tesla’s safety challenges into a single, devastating case.

We first covered the door handle power-failure risks in September, warning that Tesla’s flush-mounted handles become death traps when electrical systems fail. We followed up when NHTSA opened its investigation after parents were forced to smash windows to rescue their children.

The pattern extends beyond door handles. We’ve documented the first Cybertruck wrongful death lawsuit over similar egress failures, and we’ve reported on how new NHTSA leadership is intensifying scrutiny of Tesla’s safety systems across multiple fronts.

What makes the Dennis case uniquely troubling is how it exposes the interconnected nature of Tesla’s design philosophy. Sleek door handles that prioritize aerodynamics over mechanical reliability. Software-controlled braking systems that may deactivate at critical moments. Electronic accelerator systems that may be susceptible to voltage-induced false readings. Each system individually concerning; together, potentially catastrophic.

The “computer on wheels” framing in this lawsuit isn’t hyperbole. It’s an accurate description of vehicles where nearly every safety-critical function depends on software and electrical systems working flawlessly. When those systems fail, there are precious few mechanical backstops.

The December 10 deadline for Tesla to respond to NHTSA’s expanded door handle investigation looms. The SUA investigation continues with no resolution in sight. And families like the Dennises are left to seek accountability through the courts for failures that regulators have been too slow to address.

For Tesla owners, the immediate action is clear: Learn where your vehicle’s manual door releases are located. Practice using them. Teach every passenger. And consider keeping a window-breaking tool in the cabin.

For the industry, the question is whether innovation can continue to outpace basic safety engineering. At some point, the regulatory reckoning will come.

What do you think about the balance between cutting-edge EV design and traditional safety features? Share your thoughts in the comments below.