logo
Looming over two cases threatening Musk's car company is a single question: Can he be trusted?

Looming over two cases threatening Musk's car company is a single question: Can he be trusted?

The Hill6 days ago
MIAMI (AP) — Elon Musk fought court cases on opposite coasts Monday, raising a question about the billionaire that could either speed his plan to put self-driving Teslas on U.S. roads or throw up a major roadblock: Can this wildly successful man who tends to exaggerate really be trusted?
In Miami, a Tesla driver who has admitted he was wrong to reach for a dropped cell phone moments before a deadly accident, spoke of the danger of putting too much faith in Musk's technology — in this case his Autopilot program.
'I trusted the technology too much,' said George McGee, who ran off the road and killed a woman out stargazing with her boyfriend. 'I believed that if the car saw something in front of it, it would provide a warning and apply the brakes.'
In unusual coincidence, regulators arguing an Oakland, California, case tried to pin exaggerated talk about the same Tesla technology at the center of a request to suspend the carmaker from being able to sell vehicles in the state.
Musk's tendency to talk big — whether it's his cars, his rockets or his government costing-cutting efforts — have landed him in trouble with investors, regulators and courts before, but rarely at such a delicate moment.
After his social media spat with President Donald Trump, Musk can no longer count on a light regulatory touch from Washington. Meanwhile, sales of his electric cars have plunged and so a hit to his safety reputation could threaten his next big project: rolling out driverless robotaxis — hundreds of thousands of them — in several U.S. cities by the end of next year.
The Miami case holds other dangers, too. Lawyers for the family of the dead woman, Naibel Benavides Leon, recently convinced the judge overseeing the jury trial to allow them to argue for punitive damages. A car crash lawyer not involved in the case, but closely following it, said that could cost Tesla tens of millions of dollars, or possibly more.
'I've seen punitive damages go to the hundreds of millions, so that is the floor,' said Miguel Custodio of Los Angeles-based Custodio & Dubey. 'It is also a signal to other plaintiffs that they can also ask for punitive damages, and then the payments could start compounding.'
That Tesla has allowed the Miami case to proceed to trial is surprising. It has settled at least four deadly accidents involving Autopilot, including payments just last week to a Florida family of a Tesla driver. That said, Tesla was victorious in two other jury cases, both in California, that also sought to lay blame on its technology for crashes.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the Miami case argue that Tesla's driver-assistance feature, called Autopilot, should have warned the driver and braked when his Model S sedan blew through flashing lights, a stop sign and a T-intersection at 62 miles-an-hour in an April 2019 crash. Tesla said that drivers are warned not to rely on Autopilot, or its more advanced Full Self-Driving system. It says the fault entirely lies with the 'distracted driver' just like so many other 'accidents since cellphones were invented.'
Driver McGee settled a separate suit brought by the family of Benavides and her severely injured boyfriend, Dillon Angulo.
McGee was clearly shaken when shown a dashcam video Monday of his car jumping a Key West, Florida, road and hitting a parked Chevrolet Tahoe which then slammed into Benavides and sent her 75 feet through the air to her death. Asked if he had seen those images before, McGee pinched his lips, shook his head, then squeaked out a response, 'No.'
Tesla's attorney sought to show that McGee was fully to blame, asking if he had ever contacted Tesla for additional instructions about how Autopilot or any other safety features worked. McGee said he had not, though he was heavy user of the features. He said he had driven the same road home from work 30 or 40 times. Under questioning, he also acknowledged he alone was responsible for watching the road and hitting the brakes.
Summarizing the testimony, Tesla said in a statement after the court adjourned that McGee had 'stated the simple truth that we all know: If he had just paid attention to the road instead of searching for his dropped cell phone and pressing the accelerator —which he was doing for over a minute before the crash — this tragic accident would never have happened.'
But lawyers for the Benavides family had a chance in the courtroom at parrying that line of argument, asking McGee if he would have taken his eyes off the road and reached for his phone had he been driving any car other than a Tesla on Autopilot.
McGee responded, 'I don't believe so.'
The case is expected to continue for two more weeks.
In the California case, the state's Department of Motor Vehicles is arguing before an administrative judge that Tesla has misled drivers by exaggerating the capabilities of its Autopilot and Full Self-Driving features. A court filing claims even those feature names are misleading because they offer just partial self-driving
Musk has been warned by federal regulators to stop making public comments suggesting Full Self-Driving allows his cars to drive themselves because it could lead to overreliance on the system, resulting in possible crashes and deaths. He also has run into trouble with regulators for Autopilot. In 2023, the company had to recall 2.3 million vehicles for problems with the technology and is now under investigation for saying it fixed the issue though it's unclear it has, according to regulatory documents.
The California case is expected to last another four days.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

PGC announces new partnership with CubeSmart
PGC announces new partnership with CubeSmart

Business Insider

time31 minutes ago

  • Business Insider

PGC announces new partnership with CubeSmart

Precision Global Corporation. PGC, announces its new partnership with CubeSmart (CUBE) to manage four of its Texas-based storage assets. As of Friday, July 25, 2025, CubeSmart officially assumes third-party management of all four properties. This marks a significant milestone in PGC's expansion within the self-storage sector and reflects the company's focus on enhancing value. Under CubeSmart's management, tenants at all four Texas locations can expect elevated service, improved visibility, and enhanced operational performance through CubeSmart's proven model. Elevate Your Investing Strategy: Take advantage of TipRanks Premium at 50% off! Unlock powerful investing tools, advanced data, and expert analyst insights to help you invest with confidence.

Tesla, Inc. (TSLA)'s 'A Cult Stock,' Says Jim Cramer
Tesla, Inc. (TSLA)'s 'A Cult Stock,' Says Jim Cramer

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Tesla, Inc. (TSLA)'s 'A Cult Stock,' Says Jim Cramer

We recently published . Tesla, Inc. (NASDAQ:TSLA) is one of the stocks Jim Cramer recently discussed. Tesla, Inc. (NASDAQ:TSLA) continues to face a horrible time on the stock market in 2025. The firm's shares have lost 16.7% year-to-date and fell by 8.2% after its latest earnings report, which missed analyst revenue and earnings estimates. The results were so bad that even Cramer, who believes that Tesla, Inc. (NASDAQ:TSLA)'s potential is in emerging technologies such as robotics, was forced to do somewhat of a turnaround: '[on revenue, vehicle sold, carbon credit all down] Okay, so you listen to the conference call, and they made it so that those don't matter. All that matters is self drive, autonomous. I'm not kidding. Robotaxi, uh, Austin, California. And then there's some lines, which says, where he's saying, and David you'll get a kick out of this I'm sure, he's talking about like in a few years like everyone's gonna be in this. The robotaxi's like going great. I mean, it's not doing anything. This was a call that was a fatuous call. David, I left out Turkey, number one. Netherlands and Austria. I knew that Austrian market, that was it. 'It's a cult stock. . . This was not the kind of conference call that I expected. I did not expect an immediate pivot to robots and the self driving and the robotaxi. While we acknowledge the potential of TSLA as an investment, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns and have limited downside risk. If you are looking for an extremely cheap AI stock that is also a major beneficiary of Trump tariffs and onshoring, see our free report on the . READ NEXT: 30 Stocks That Should Double in 3 Years and 11 Hidden AI Stocks to Buy Right Now. Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

How leaders can be transparent about their belief systems without alienating anyone
How leaders can be transparent about their belief systems without alienating anyone

Fast Company

timean hour ago

  • Fast Company

How leaders can be transparent about their belief systems without alienating anyone

Not long ago, leaders largely steered clear of the rough-and-tumble of politics. They inhabited a culture of impartiality, and for the most part stayed in their lane, rising now and then when called upon to offer observations about their specific sectors. Those times are over. We now live in an era of CEO activism, where shareholders, employees, and consumers expect corporate leaders to take a stand on issues far beyond their core industry—issues like immigration, DEI, or gender rights. Whereas before, hardly anyone outside of their industry could pick a chief executives out of a lineup, today's business leaders from Howard Schultz to Bill Gates to Elon Musk are household names, with the ability to influence public discourse—and policy—with a single tweet. For a business, there are distinct advantages to taking a political stand. At the same time, there is a fine line between brand enhancement and brand destruction. In this climate, how can a leader be transparent about her or his belief system without alienating anyone? Rewards and Risks First, it's hard, if not impossible, to reveal your belief system without alienating someone. It's almost a given: audiences and stakeholders these days may demand a political stand, but they can also be thin-skinned and easily offended when they don't agree with that stand. For the leader, the key is to avoid alienating significant portions of the constituencies and stakeholders responsible for the company's ultimate success: shareholders, employees, and consumers. When it comes to affiliating openly with a political figure or party, there can be advantages, such as privileged access and perhaps the ability to favorably influence policy direction. That said, there are also risks. Some of them are obvious: political fortunes are volatile, and public opinion is fickle, both of which can spell trouble for an aligned business. Political leaders have many priorities, and can shift their own positions on a dime, leaving a company that has publicly pledged allegiance with a case of whiplash. They are also prone to scandal, leaving aligned brands exposed to public outrage. Moreover, while there are certainly dangers in speaking out, silence can also have negative consequences in the public eye. It's important to realize that political parties, personalities, even movements come and go. Leaders are in this for the long haul; they should want their company to prosper for more than one election cycle. Recent events demonstrate the power of public opinion. The Trump administration's executive orders against diversity and inclusion initiatives split the business communities. Target rushed to align with the new directives, but Costco remained true to its own DEI stance. As a result, consumers punished Target and rewarded Costco. Staying true to the core Remember that politicians are paid to be politicians. Executives are not. Leaders are paid to ensure a company grows and prospers far into the future. That might mean rubbing elbows with those in power, or even contributing to campaigns, but it does not have to mean selling the soul of your identity, i.e. politicizing the brand or dragging a company's image (along with you) for the sake of a small short-term advantage. Reputations are hard to rebuild, and customers, once lost, are hard to reclaim. While a leader's personal beliefs may inform actions both private and professional, there are a few basic principles that can act as guardrails, providing the freedom to be transparent while preventing the leader's viewpoints and actions from creating conflicts and harming the company's fortunes. 1. Focus on values, not politics Nobody expects an executive and a workforce of thousands to agree on every issue. But a leader can set the tone by emphasizing core organizational values rather than personal political opinions. Companies are strongest when they articulate and consistently adhere to a clear set of values—regardless of shifting political winds. 2. Tie beliefs to business mission As a leader, you are a steward of your company's mission—not a political spokesperson. If your personal convictions align with your business's purpose, express them in a way that supports that mission. If they don't, reflect on whether your current role aligns with your values. A CEO thrives when personal belief and business purpose reinforce one another. 3. Build credibility through consistency While political trends are fickle, brand trust is built over time. Consumers reward companies that consistently uphold their stated commitments—whether to sustainability, product quality, or inclusion. Consistency is credibility. 4. Respect dissent, invite dialogue Foster a culture where respectful disagreement is welcome. Employees should feel safe expressing differing opinions without fear of retaliation. Provide spaces—forums, listening sessions, anonymous feedback tools—for difficult conversations to happen constructively. Diversity of thought is a strength, not a liability. 5. Be strategic If you choose to speak out, do so with intention. Consult your communications team, evaluate stakeholder impact, and conduct a risk-benefit analysis. As Harvard Business Review contributors Aaron Chatterji and Michael W. Toffel advise: 'Select issues carefully, reflect on the best times and approaches to get involved, consider the potential for backlash, and measure results.' Who's doing it right? A number of well-known CEOs have made a point of voicing their beliefs, and have not suffered for it. On the contrary, they have developed a leadership style that manages to be both values-informed and advantageous from a business standpoint. 1. Satya Nadella (Microsoft). Nadella openly discusses empathy and his Hindu faith, speaking often of caring for his son with special needs. He is upfront about his personal values of humility and purpose, but does not impose these upon the firm directly, emphasizing instead organizational culture and customer impact. Under his watch, Microsoft has quadrupled its market capitalization. 2. Dan Schulman (former CEO, PayPal). Schulman has been vocal in support of social justice and economic inclusion, which he links to his personal Jewish ethical values. PayPal pulled out of North Carolina to protest anti-LGBTQ legislation, a move that was criticized by the right but rewarded by stakeholders, with shareholder returns remaining strong. 3. Rose Marcario (former CEO, Patagonia). Markario's Buddhist beliefs and environmental ethics were strongly aligned with Patagonia's corporate mission. So when the company sued the Trump administration over its intention to dismantle and sell off national monuments, it mobilized the company's core outdoor audience and strengthened the brand, with increases in both consumer loyalty and profits. 4. Ken Frazier (former CEO, Merck). In 2017, Frazier resigned from President Trump's American Manufacturing Council following the administration's tepid response to the white supremacist marches and ensuing violence in Charlottesville, Virginia. Frazier's action was seen as deeply principled, and Merck's shareholder value was not damaged. Other CEOs (UnderArmour, Intel, et al) followed suit, in part because Frazier's action created a public demand for moral leadership. Finding balance In the end, leaders must balance their own need to reveal their personal beliefs with the greater good of the organization. This is both an internal and external journey that requires a high degree of reflection as well as an appreciation for the complexity of the company and its role in both the market and society. It's an extremely challenging time to be a leader, but also an exciting one.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store