&w=3840&q=100)
Tesla failed to prevent misuse of autopilot system, safety expert testifies
Mary 'Missy' Cummings, an engineering professor at George Mason University, told jurors in Miami federal court that the Tesla owner's manual, which contains critical warnings about how the system works, is difficult for drivers to access.
'Do you have any opinion as to why Tesla chose not to geofence its tech in 2019 and create a safe operational domain when other manufacturers were?' Cummings was asked by a lawyer for the plaintiffs, Brett Schreiber.
'I believe they were using that as a way to sell more cars,' said Cummings, who previously served as a senior adviser at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
A Tesla representative declined to comment on Cummings' testimony. She is expected to return to the witness stand Thursday when lawyers for Tesla will have a chance to question her.
The trial, which began Monday and is expected to take three weeks, is among the first to test Tesla Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk's claims that his cars are the safest ever made. It comes at a critical juncture for Tesla, which is making a big push to roll out a robotaxi business as the company stakes its future in part on autonomous driving.
The lawsuit was brought on behalf of Naibel Benavides Leon, who was killed, and Dillon Angulo, who was seriously injured when a Tesla Model S went through a T-intersection in Key Largo and off the pavement, striking their parked Chevrolet Tahoe as they were standing next to it.
The plaintiffs' lawyers allege that Tesla's driver-assistance system was defective and that the company failed to warn users about its limitations. Tesla maintains that the crash was caused by driver error, a defense the company has successfully used to win two previous California trials when Autopilot was blamed for accidents.
George McGee, the driver of the Model S, had engaged the driver-assistance system, but had dropped his mobile phone and wasn't watching the road while reaching for the device on the floorboard.
Lawyers for Angulo and the estate of Benavides Leon told the jury that the collision was a 'preventable tragedy' and that the automated system built into the car failed to respond when it detected the end of the roadway, regardless of how McGee was driving.
They have repeatedly shown jurors augmented video clips captured by cameras on the car that show the system identifying the edge of the road, paint on the roadway indicating a stop sign, the Tahoe parked off road and a pedestrian standing nearby.
But Tesla argues that no technology that was on the market in 2019 would have been able to prevent the crash, and that McGee was fully at fault because he was pressing the accelerator and overriding the vehicle's adaptive cruise control before he went off the road.
Cummings was asked by Schreiber about a letter to NHTSA in which Tesla asserted that 'Autopilot has the most robust set of warnings against driver misuses and abuse of any feature ever deployed in the automotive industry.'
She told the jury, 'I saw no evidence that would back up this claim that they have the most robust set of warnings.'
When Cummings was appointed as a safety adviser for NHTSA in 2021, Musk called her 'extremely biased against Tesla' and Tesla fans signed a petition against her.
Cummings has served as an expert witness in at least two other lawsuits against Tesla related to the Autopilot system, according to court filings.
The professor said McGee was very clear speaking after the accident that he thought this car was his copilot and that it would stop for obstacles in the road. Like many Tesla drivers, she said, McGee felt he could rely on Autopilot to navigate when he dropped his phone.
'The car is doing a good job of driving so I'm going to reach down and pick it up because my copilot is driving,' she said.
The case is Benavides v. Tesla, 1:21-cv-21940, US District Court, Southern District of Florida (Miami).
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Kotak Mahindra Prime becomes preferred financer for Tesla EVs in India
Kotak Mahindra Prime ( KMPL ), the auto financing arm of Kotak Group, on Friday said it has become a preferred financer , offering its seamless financing experience for Tesla's futuristic EVs. Kotak Mahindra Prime is the first among financers to be appointed as a Preferred Financer for Tesla in India, the company said in a statement. KMPL will be offering specially curated car finance schemes for Tesla EV buyers, it said. Buyers would be able to check financing options by KMPL on the Tesla India portal/mobile application itself for a seamless buying experience, it said. "We have always been at the forefront of financing sustainable mobility solutions. Our collaboration with Tesla will give further impetus to our efforts in enabling customers to realise their aspiration towards a more sustainable living," KMPL Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer Shahrukh Todiwala said.
India.com
2 hours ago
- India.com
Tesla Vs BYD: India new battleground! China's this person to crush Elon Musk's dream? he has been an expert in…
China's BYD (Build Your Dreams) has overtaken Tesla in global electric vehicle (EV) sales, but its presence in India is still limited. Now, with Tesla entering the Indian market, the country has become the latest battle ground for the rivalry between Elon Musk and BYD's founder Wang Chuanfu. According to some media reports China's BYD can outpace Musk on every front. Elon Musk's Tesla VS BYD In recent months, BYD has surpassed Tesla in global EV sales, delivering 380,000 cars worldwide, while selling just 500 units in India last month barely 0.1% of its global sales. Despite its relatively low profile in India, BYD's technology is considered highly advanced internationally. In China, its new models can charge in just 5 minutes and offer a range of over 500 kilometers, which is nearly 50 times faster than popular EVs like the MG ZS EV, according to investor Rahul Mathur. Journey Of BYD Wang Chuanfu, the founder and chairman of BYD, is known for his tireless work ethic and for working 70 hours a week. He commutes by car himself, and lives alongside workers in BYD's factories. Originally a battery manufacturer, Wang founded BYD in 1995, entered the automobile market in 2003, and launched his first EV in 2009. His vision is to make EV charging as quick and easy as refueling a petrol car. The late billionaire Charlie Munger, Vice Chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, once described Wang as a combination of Thomas Edison and Jack Welch. Berkshire invested $230 million in BYD in 2008, which has now grown over 15 times in value. BYD In India In 2022, BYD launched its Atto 3 SUV in India, which is assembled in Chennai. However, as of May 2025, BYD accounted for less than 4% of India's EV market share. Tesla, meanwhile, is preparing a major entry into India, hoping to compensate for its declining global sales by tapping into the fast-growing Indian EV market. But Wang Chuanfu can also block Musk at every turn. The Chinese businessman is preparing to deliver such a blow to Musk's Tesla that it would be hard for it to recover.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
ETtech Explainer: X, Centre at loggerheads over social media misuse
In a legal battle on accountability versus liberty, the government of India and Elon Musk's microblogging platform X are slugging it out in the Karnataka High Court. At the eye of the storm are the government's content-blocking orders and issues arising out of them. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The Indian government and Elon Musk's X are engaged in a legal battle before the Karnataka High Court over the question of accountability versus liberty. The microblogging platform has argued that the government's content-blocking orders hinder its business. In response, the government has advocated for justified action against misleading content on social matter has raised questions over the Information Technology Act, 2000 provisions that mandate taking down problematic content and grant 'safe harbour' to intermediaries that host take a look at arguments set forth so far by both parties and their prospective implications:In its plea before the Karnataka High Court, X has asked for the scrapping of Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology Rules as unconstitutional. It also wants the court to declare that the government cannot take down content under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000, and only the procedure under Section 69A of the Act, read with the IT Rules, allows 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021, mandates that intermediaries should take down unlawful content following a court order or appropriate government notification under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000, which rescinds 'safe harbour' against criminal liability granted to such entities if they fail to take down information after being notified.X has been vocal about takedown orders from the government, calling them unjustified and detrimental to its business in a hearing earlier this month, KG Raghavan, representing X in the matter, had told the court that every "Tom, Dick, and Harry" government official had been authorised to issue content takedown orders, which evoked sharp rebuke from the government's the legal spat is unfolding as Musk is looking to launch and expand his companies—Tesla and Starlink—in Indian government has been proposing regulations for content on social media platforms to curb the proliferation of harmful the central government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated that X has been trying to shirk its responsibility by hiding behind 'safe harbour' provisions. The platform allowing unlawful content in the name of free speech is endangering democracy, Mehta the hearing on Friday, the law officer presented before the court a verified account of the 'Supreme Court of Karnataka' on X to make the point that creating fake accounts and getting them verified are easy on the platform."We have created an AI-generated video where Your Lordship appears to speak against the nation. It's unlawful, but it doesn't fit any category under Section 69A," Mehta told the single-judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna, pressing his point that many instances of online harm fall into a regulatory grey explained that the legal framework includes both severe and minimal interventions and advocated for cautious, proportionate responses in certain court will now hear the matter next on July the wake of the Pahalgam terrorist attack in April, several social media accounts across platforms were blocked by the Indian government to check the spread of misinformation amid heightened bilateral tensions. While the accounts were primarily from Pakistan, some Indian accounts were affected in the action as May 9, X blocked its own Global Government Affairs account, a day after revealing that it was asked by the government to restrict 8,000 accounts of prominent news organisations and individuals. The social media platform said the government threatened significant fines and imprisonment of its employees upon failure to comply. The account was later July 6, official accounts of the global news portal Reuters and Reuters Global were withheld in India. While the IT Ministry denied issuing any order to this effect, X said that it was asked to block 2,355 accounts, along with the two from Reuters, under Section 69A of the IT response, the government blamed X for delaying the restoration of the two accounts and denied its claims that it wanted to block any international news ongoing spat has also brought into focus the 'safe harbour' accorded to internet intermediaries against third-party content they host. In his arguments, Mehta has noted that safe harbour is not an absolute right but a privilege granted to intermediaries who adhere to a written submission to a parliamentary committee, the government had said that it is reconsidering the concept of safe harbour to curb the spread of fake news. Changes in provisions would affect all social media platforms operating in India, not just X.
