Tesla has achieved a significant legal victory after a U.S. court ruled in its favor over allegations its Autopilot feature resulted in a fatal accident.
The decision marks Tesla’s second major legal win this year, with jurors rejecting claims that its software was flawed.
The lawsuit claimed the company’s Autopilot caused Micah Lee’s Model 3 to crash into a palm tree at high speed, leading to a fire.
READ MORE: Tesla Bosses To Pay $735 Million Back To Settle Lawsuit
Lee was killed in the crash in 2019 and two passengers were severely injured.
The plaintiffs sought over $400 million in damages.
However, Tesla refuted the claims, pointing out Lee had consumed alcohol prior to the crash and it was uncertain if Autopilot was active during the incident.
After four days of deliberation, the jury, with a 9-3 vote, concluded that the vehicle did not have a manufacturing defect.
Looking to boost your online brand? Create your FREE business profile at WhatBiz? Here.
Jonathan Michaels, representing the plaintiffs, expressed his disappointment but acknowledged the challenging nature of the trial for Tesla.
Tesla defended its vehicles, stating they enhance road safety.
The company had previously won a case in Los Angeles by emphasizing that despite the names “Autopilot” and “Full Self-Driving,” human oversight is essential.
Experts believe these verdicts highlight the jury’s focus on driver responsibility.
However, some unique aspects of the Riverside case, such as steering issues, were highlighted by legal professionals.
Need Career Advice? Get employment skills advice at all levels of your careerv
Tesla’s stock experienced a positive uptick following the trial.
During the proceedings, the plaintiff’s attorney presented a 2017 Tesla safety analysis, which the company clarified was a proactive measure to address potential issues.
Tesla engineer, Eloy Rubio Blanco, during his testimony, refuted claims that the “Full Self-Driving” name was misleading.
Tesla is currently under investigation by U.S. authorities over its vehicles’ self-driving capabilities. Analyst Sam Abuelsamid believes that Tesla’s legal disclaimers provide a strong defense in court, but regulatory intervention is essential.
