Tesla's so-called auto drive system will be sued again.

Judge says found evidence that Tesla executives know what's wrong

Recently, in a lawsuit involving automatic driving by Tesla, a judge in Florida found that there was "reasonable evidence" to conclude that Tesla and its management personnel, including CEO Mask, were still allowed to drive in areas "unsafe for the technology" when they knew that their vehicle's auto drive system was defective.

This lawsuit in Florida revolves around a Tesla owner's car accident that occurred in northern Miami in 2019. At that time, owner Stephen Banner's Model 3 drove under the trailer of an 18 wheeled large truck turning onto the road, and Tesla's roof was cut off, resulting in Banner's death in the accident.

Last week, Judge Reid Scott of the Palm Beach County Circuit Court in Florida ruled in this case that Banner's family could seek punitive damages from Tesla for intentional misconduct and gross negligence.

The judge also stated that the Banner incident was extremely similar to the fatal car accident that occurred in 2016 with another Tesla owner, Joshua Brown. In that accident, the auto drive system failed to detect the trailer crossing the road, causing the vehicle to hit the trailer at high speed.

Adam Gustafsson, the investigator of these two incidents and also an autopilot engineer, stated that in both accidents, Tesla's autopilot system failed to detect the vehicle towing the trailer and the vehicle was not stopped in a timely manner. Gustafsson testified that although Tesla was aware of this issue, there were no changes or updates to Tesla's relevant traffic detection and warning system from the Brown accident to the Banner accident.

In the ruling, the judge reached a reasonable conclusion after contacting testimony from other Tesla engineers, that even though Musk, who was closely involved in the development of the autopilot, was keenly aware of the issue, he still failed to take remedial measures.

Musk may need to testify in court

The Banner case was originally scheduled to be tried in October this year, but the final trial has been postponed, and it is currently unclear when it will resume.

Bryant Walker Smith, a law professor at the University of South Carolina, believes that the judge's summary of evidence is important because it indicates a "shocking inconsistency" between Tesla's internal understanding and what is being said in marketing. Smith said, "This opinion opens the door to a public trial, and judges seem to be inclined to admit a large amount of testimony and other evidence, which may be quite awkward for Tesla and its CEO."

Once the case enters the trial stage, there may be some unfavorable situations for Tesla.

On the one hand, during the trial, Tesla may need to disclose new information about the company's collection of large amounts of data, which is usually top secret.

On the other hand, the judge found that Tesla executives failed to report the defects of its auto drive system, which may also mean that Musk must testify in court.

The judge pointed out that a "misleading video" from 2016 was found to be produced by Musk. The video claims that Tesla can be fully autonomous driven by the Autopilot system. The judge believes that the scene displayed in the video is "not much different" from the situation encountered by Banner, which involves Tesla's false advertising. Tesla's marketing strategy describes these products as autonomous driving products, and Musk's public statement about autonomous driving "has had a significant impact on people's confidence in product capabilities.".

Self-Driving Flaws or Human Error？

Although the judge found new evidence, Tesla's lawyers may learn from the precedents of two cases Tesla faced earlier this year, in which Tesla won.

In April of this year, a California jury ruled that Tesla should not be held responsible for the 2019 accident involving autonomous driving, and Tesla ultimately won. In this incident, Tesla owner Justine Hsu suddenly turned to the side of the road in autonomous driving mode, and the airbags deployed "very aggressively", ultimately causing her chin to fracture, teeth to fall off, and facial nerves to be damaged. Hsu accuses Tesla of defects in the design of its Autopilot and airbags and demands compensation.

Jurors believe that Tesla has clearly warned that some autonomous driving software is not fully autonomous, and stated that driver distraction is the culprit. Hsu sued Tesla again for fraud, negligence, and breach of contract in 2020, but did not receive compensation.

At the end of October, in another Tesla car owner death case, the jury once again sided with Tesla. According to the lawsuit, Tesla's auto drive system caused Micah Lee's Model 3 to suddenly deviate from the highway at a speed of 105 km/h and hit a palm tree, eventually causing the vehicle to catch fire and the owner to die.

Tesla refuses to take responsibility for this case, stating that the accident was caused by human error as Lee drank alcohol before driving. Tesla also argues that it is unclear whether the autopilot was activated at the time of the accident. This is Tesla's first victory in an autopilot case involving a fatal accident in the United States region.

In both accidents, Tesla claimed that it was caused by human error.

In addition, Tesla's disclaimer has also freed the company from many responsibilities. Guidehouse Insights analyst Sam Abuelsamid stated that Tesla's disclaimer provides a strong defense for the company in civil cases. Abuelsamid said, "I think it's difficult for anyone to defeat Tesla over liability claims in court. This is a problem that regulatory agencies need to address."

Currently, the Banner case is still ongoing, and whether Tesla will win again or ultimately suffer a major setback remains to be seen.