Tesla must pay portion of $329M damages after fatal Autopilot crash, jury says

Post by terminalshort » Fri, Aug 01, 2025, 9:03 PM UTC

wedn3sday wrote: post #14

bsimpson wrote: post #5

Wellbeing doesn't have a price tag. There's no amount of money someone could pay you to make up for your daughter dying early or your son becoming disabled. However, $329M sounds like an imaginary amount of money in a liability claim. If this guy crashed into a parked car without Tesla being involved, the family would be unfathomably lucky to even get 1% of that amount.

Perhaps the driver would have acted differently if Tesla hadnt sold him a product called "autopilot."

Post by dzhiurgis » Fri, Aug 01, 2025, 9:05 PM UTC

thorum wrote: post #19

guywithahat wrote: post #4

> The company must pay $329 million in damages to victims and survivor, including compensatory and punitive damages. > A Tesla owner named George McGee was driving his Model S electric sedan while using the company’s Enhanced Autopilot, a partially automated driving system. > While driving, McGee dropped his mobile phone that he was using and scrambled to pick it up. He said during the trial that he believed Enhanced…

The product simply should not be called Autopilot. Anyone with any common sense could predict that many people will (quite reasonably) assume that a feature called Autopilot functions as a true autopilot, and that misunderstanding will lead to fatalities.

Post by dzhiurgis » Fri, Aug 01, 2025, 9:06 PM UTC

cosmicgadget wrote: post #55

bangaladore wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> feature called Autopilot functions as a true autopilot What's a "true autopilot"? In airplanes, autopilot systems traditionally keep heading, altitude, and speed, but pilots are still required to monitor and take over when necessary. It's not hands-off or fully autonomous. I would argue you are creating a definition of "autopilot" that most people do not agree with.

IANAP but I think they can take their hands off the controls and pick up a dropped phone.

Post by metabagel » Fri, Aug 01, 2025, 9:09 PM UTC

LorenPechtel wrote: post #105

al_borland wrote: post #79

If I were running a car company, I may decide to stop development on assistive features and remove any that exist from future models. The way people are using them, and the courts are punishing the companies for adding these safety features, is it worth it to them? Not having them would also bring down the base price on vehicles, which seems to be the primary complaint from people right now.

It's not assistive features in general that are the problem. It's that level 3 self-drive (which is what Tesla purports to have) should not be permitted to exist. Things which simply help the driver, fine. Lane assist, adaptive cruise control and other such things that remove some of the workload but still leave the driver with the full responsibility of control. That's level 2. Level 3 can generally run the car but…

Post by dzhiurgis » Fri, Aug 01, 2025, 9:11 PM UTC

naet wrote: post #84

SilverElfin wrote: post #6

> While driving, McGee dropped his mobile phone that he was using and scrambled to pick it up. He said during the trial that he believed Enhanced Autopilot would brake if an obstacle was in the way. His Model S accelerated through an intersection at just over 60 miles per hour, hitting a nearby empty parked car and its owners, who were standing on the other side of their vehicle. Hard for me to see this as anything b…

The argument is that if the driver was in a different vehicle he would have done just that, pulled over and picked it up, but because he believed the Tesla was capable of driving safely on it's own he didn't do so. Normally I turn the steering wheel when I want to turn my car. If you sold me a car and told me it had technology to make turns automatically without my input then I might let go of the wheel instead of tu…