A Florida jury ruled last week that Tesla bore partial responsibility for a fatal crash in 2019 involving a Model S and ordered the company to pay punitive and compensatory damages of $242.6m.
But if this put Tesla on the back foot, the carmaker wasn’t letting on. It promptly declared the judgement “wrong” before its board went on this week to reveal a new $29bn pay package for CEO Elon Musk.
The case centered on a 2019 accident, during which a Tesla driver ran a red light while searching for his phone before ploughing into a parked vehicle, killing one occupant and injuring another.
The family of the deceased brought a case claiming that Tesla’s Autopilot feature had contributed to the accident. Their lawyers argued that Autopilot should have braked and alerted the driver.
The lawyer leading the family’s case argued that even using the term “autopilot” was misleading, and caused people to over-rely on the technology.
Tesla argued that fault lay squarely with the driver of the Tesla for running the stop sign and keeping his feet on the gas.
The jury decided that the 2019 Model S had a “defect which was a legal cause of damage” in the accident, and Tesla bore a third of the responsibility for the damage, according to a Jury Verdict Form posted by Nelson Law LLC. Benavides v. Tesla Inc. – Jury Verdict | Nelson Law, LLC
Professor Missy Cummings, of the College of Engineering and Computing at George Mason University, said on LinkedIn: “As the AI expert on this case, I am glad to see this outcome – this verdict is not only a win for the victims but all of automotive safety.”
Lawyers saw the case as giving an important steer when it comes to autonomous vehicles and manufacturers’ potential liability.
One law firm said the case underscored the “complex legal landscape” around autonomous vehicles. It said victims of a crash involving an autonomous vehicle could have a product liability claim against a manufacturer if, “their technology is defective, unsafe, or misrepresented.”
Given the proliferation of AI powered “autonomous” systems, the case could have broader implications, both from a product point of view – is the underlying system flawed – and in the claims manufacturers make for their products.
That’s assuming the verdict stands, of course.
Tesla took a defiant stance on the verdict, saying it would appeal, and the BBC reports, claiming that the case would “set back automotive safety and jeopardize Tesla’s and the entire industry’s efforts to develop and implement life-saving technology.”
What is hasn’t set back is Tesla’s regard for its own CEO. The board wrote to shareholders on Monday to say that Musk had not received “meaningful compensation for eight years”.
The Delaware Courts have already put a previous 2018 multi billion Musk pay deal into legal limbo, the letter said.
So the company was taking “an important first step” in compensating Musk for his work, it said, while “retaining Elon is more important ever”.
Highlights of the new deal include 96 million restricted shares, and “a requirement that Elon serve continuously in a senior leadership role at Tesla during the two-year vesting term”. The new deal is estimated to be worth around $29bn. In the meantime, Tesla will continue to fight to pass the original 2018 deal.