Los Angeles Superior Court ruled on April 21 that Tesla’s Autopilot has no liability in what seems to be the first crash-related trial involving the software.
About the case
In 2020, Justine Hsu of Los Angeles filed a lawsuit against Tesla. She alleged that her Tesla Model S “swerved into a curb while using Autopilot.” Additionally, the airbag’s violent activation “fractured Plaintiff’s jaw, knocked out teeth, and caused nerve damage to her face.”
She claims that Tesla’s Autopilot and the airbag had design flaws. In return, she demanded more than $3 million in damages.
In a court filing, Tesla claimed that Hsu employed Autopilot on city streets despite a user manual advising against doing so. Tesla denied fault for the collision.
Good news for Tesla, the Los Angeles Superior Court’s jury granted zero damages to the complainant. The jury discovered that the Model S airbag had no defects. In addition, it determined that Tesla did not intentionally hold off facts relevant to the case.
Jurors told Reuters that Tesla made it abundantly apparent in its warnings that the Autopilot was not a self-piloted system and that driver distraction was to blame after the verdict.
See Also:
- Tesla conducts trials for its new remote test drive strategy
- Tesla’s hardcore litigation team recruits New York trial lawyer
- Tesla Autopilot scores lower in driver assistance ratings, according to a testing group
- Tesla engineer alleged the company faked a “full autopilot” video
- Tesla Autopilot prevents an accident in Louisiana
Ed Walters, a Georgetown Law professor who teaches a course on autonomous vehicles, referred to the decision as a “huge win” for Tesla.
“This case should be a wakeup call to Tesla owners: they can’t over-rely on Autopilot, and they really need to be ready to take control and Tesla is not a self-driving system.”
Professor Ed Walters
Electrek noted that the verdict is not regarded as legally binding for other cases, regardless of the distinctive nature of the trial and decision. On the basis of the case’s facts, various juries may reach disparate conclusions.
