Tesla driver arrested for allegedly fleeing scene of deadly collision on Pattullo Bridge
According to a notice of civil claim filed in B.C. Supreme Court Wednesday, the Tesla driver fled the scene after either "racing with, or in the alternative travelling with, a Nissan Altima" that slammed into the truck in the southbound lanes of the east end of the Pattullo on Valentine's Day.
The court documents say the young man was arrested last week and his car — a 2022 Tesla Y model — has been impounded.
In a statement to CBC News, the Surrey Police Service confirmed the arrest.
"An individual was arrested and subsequently released," said SPS spokesperson Ian MacDonald.
"We are anticipating that once we put together our recommended charge package, it would hit B.C. Prosecution Service and then they would assess our charges and the grounds for those charges."
Previous charges
The CBC is not naming the Surrey driver, who has not been charged in relation with the collision and has not responded to the lawsuit.
The notice of civil claim says the director of civil forfeiture is seeking the forfeiture of the Tesla, which it claims is an instrument of unlawful activity.
The lawsuit says the driver is accused of failing to remain at the scene of the accident, excessive speeding and driving in a careless manner.
According to court records obtained by CBC News, the same young man was charged last September under the Motor Vehicle Act with having tinted windows and using an electronic device while operating a motor vehicle on a highway.
The vehicle in that incident was an Acura.
The 18-year-old is scheduled to make a court appearance in relation to that charge later this month.
Witnesses assisted police investigation
MacDonald said the collision is being investigated by the RCMP's criminal collision investigation team.
He said witnesses to the accident helped lead to the man's arrest, but he wouldn't go into the details of what police believed had happened immediately prior to the accident.
According to earlier statements from police, the three people who were killed and the one person who was injured were all passengers in one of the cars involved.
The driver of the semi-trailer truck was unhurt and remained on scene.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
an hour ago
- CTV News
Number of extortion files balloons from 10 to 26 in just 7 weeks, Surrey police say
The number of reported extortion threats has increased to 26, as targeted business owners continue to struggle with fear and uncertainty. As recently as mid-June, Surrey police said they had received a total of 10 extortion reports from South Asian business owners this year, a figure they believed was significantly lower than the true number of extortion attempts happening in the community. Sure enough, just seven weeks later, after multiple public appeals for additional victims to come forward, the Surrey Police Service told CTV News on Thursday that it's now up to 26 extortion reports in 2025 so far. 'Those incidents are being investigated by the SPS Extortion Investigation Team,' a spokesperson said in an email. Satish Kumar is one of the victims. The scars of an extortion-related shooting at his banquet hall in early June are still visible, and he says the extortion calls haven't stopped. 'I got lots after that (shooting),' he told CTV News on Thursday. 'Yesterday, I got an extortion call, too.' Surrey is far from the only city in Canada where South Asian business owners have been targeted for extortion. Last year, following reports in Alberta, Ontario and B.C., the RCMP launched a national team to co-ordinate police responses to the threats, at least some of which are believed to have originated in India. Referencing previous years' incidents, Sgt. Tige Pollock said extortion is 'not a new problem in Surrey,' and said the SPS is doing what it can to address the issue. 'One is one too many, as far as we're concerned,' he said. 'Twenty-six is alarming.' In June, Crime Stoppers announced it would begin taking tips from extortion victims. Traditionally, the organization does not accept tips from victims of crime, who should be contacting police directly. The provincial government also recently worked with Crime Stoppers to launch an advertising campaign encouraging extortion victims not to pay criminals and to report the extortion calls they receive. Conservative MLA Steve Kooner, the Opposition critic for the Attorney General, said the government's efforts have so far been inadequate. 'It is very, very concerning that there isn't much being done on the crisis,' he said. 'Our police services are doing a good job, but the provincial government has been missing.' On Thursday, he penned an open letter critiquing Attorney General Niki Sharma and the NDP government about the extortion issue. He's calling for the province to devote more resources to investigating and solving these crimes. 'You can't just leave a community on their own,' he said. 'This is affecting a certain segment of the population that are entrepreneurs and they employ a lot of people in the community … There is just more that can be done.' With files from CTV News Vancouver's Demetra Maragos
Globe and Mail
2 hours ago
- Globe and Mail
Jury orders Tesla to pay more than $240 million in Autopilot crash case
MIAMI (AP) — A Miami jury decided that Elon Musk's car company Tesla was partly responsible for a deadly crash in Florida involving its Autopilot driver assist technology and must pay the victims more than $200 million in damages. The federal jury held that Tesla bore significant responsibility because its technology failed and that not all the blame can be put on a reckless driver, even one who admitted he was distracted by his cell phone before hitting a young couple out gazing at the stars. The decision comes as Musk seeks to convince Americans his cars are safe enough to drive on their own as he plans to roll out a driverless taxi service in several cities in the coming months. The decision ends a four-year long case remarkable not just in its outcome but that it even made it to trial. Many similar cases against Tesla have been dismissed and, when that didn't happen, settled by the company to avoid the spotlight of a trial. 'This will open the floodgates,' said Miguel Custodio, a car crash lawyer not involved in the Tesla case. 'It will embolden a lot of people to come to court.' The case also included startling charges by lawyers for the family of the deceased, 22-year-old, Naibel Benavides Leon, and for her injured boyfriend, Dillon Angulo. They claimed Tesla either hid or lost key evidence, including data and video recorded seconds before the accident. Tesla has previously faced criticism that it is slow to cough up crucial data by relatives of other victims in Tesla crashes, accusations that the car company has denied. In this case, the plaintiffs showed Tesla had the evidence all along, despite its repeated denials, by hiring a forensic data expert who dug it up. Tesla said it made a mistake after being shown the evidence and honestly hadn't thought it was there. 'Today's verdict is wrong," Tesla said in a statement, 'and only works to set back automotive safety and jeopardize Tesla's and the entire industry's efforts to develop and implement life-saving technology,' They said the plaintiffs concocted a story 'blaming the car when the driver – from day one – admitted and accepted responsibility.' In addition to a punitive award of $200 million, the jury said Tesla must also pay $43 million in compensatory damages, bringing the total borne by the company to $243 million. 'It's a big number that will send shockwaves to others in the industry,' said financial analyst Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities. 'It's not a good day for Tesla.' Tesla said it will appeal. It's not clear how much of a hit to Tesla's reputation for safety the verdict in the Miami case will make. Tesla has vastly improved its technology since the crash on a dark, rural road in Key Largo, Florida, in 2019. But the issue of trust generally in the company came up several times in the case, including in closing arguments Thursday. The plaintiffs' lead lawyer, Brett Schreiber, said Tesla's decision to even use the term Autopilot showed it was willing to mislead people and take big risks with their lives because the system only helps drivers with lane changes, slowing a car and other tasks, falling far short of driving the car itself. Schreiber said other automakers use terms like 'driver assist' and 'copilot' to make sure drivers don't rely too much on the technology. 'Words matter,' Schreiber said. 'And if someone is playing fast and lose with words, they're playing fast and lose with information and facts.' Schreiber acknowledged that the driver, George McGee, was negligent when he blew through flashing lights, a stop sign and a T-intersection at 62 miles an hour before slamming into a Chevrolet Tahoe that the couple had parked to get a look at the stars. The Tahoe spun around so hard it was able to launch Benavides 75 feet through the air into nearby woods where her body was later found. It also left Angulo, who walked into the courtroom Friday with a limp and cushion to sit on, with broken bones and a traumatic brain injury. But Schreiber said Tesla was at fault nonetheless. He said Tesla allowed drivers to act recklessly by not disengaging the Autopilot as soon as they begin to show signs of distraction and by allowing them to use the system on smaller roads that it was not designed for, like the one McGee was driving on. 'I trusted the technology too much,' said McGee at one point in his testimony. 'I believed that if the car saw something in front of it, it would provide a warning and apply the brakes.' The lead defense lawyer in the Miami case, Joel Smith, countered that Tesla warns drivers that they must keep their eyes on the road and hands on the wheel yet McGee chose not to do that while he looked for a dropped cell phone, adding to the danger by speeding. Noting that McGee had gone through the same intersection 30 or 40 times previously and hadn't crashed during any of those trips, Smith said that isolated the cause to one thing alone: 'The cause is that he dropped his cell phone.' The auto industry has been watching the case closely because a finding of Tesla liability despite a driver's admission of reckless behavior would pose significant legal risks for every company as they develop cars that increasingly drive themselves.
Global News
3 hours ago
- Global News
Tesla found partly liable for fatal Autopilot crash, must pay over US$200M
A Miami jury decided that Elon Musk's car company Tesla was partly responsible for a deadly crash in Florida involving its Autopilot driver assist technology and must pay the victims more than $200 million in punitive damages. The federal jury held that Tesla bore significant responsibility because its technology failed and that not all the blame can be put on a reckless driver, even one who admitted he was distracted by his cell phone before hitting a young couple out gazing at the stars. The decision comes as Musk seeks to convince Americans his cars are safe enough to drive on their own as he plans to roll out a driverless taxi service in several cities in the coming months. The decision ends a four-year long case remarkable not just in its outcome but that it even made it to trial. Many similar cases against Tesla have been dismissed and, when that didn't happen, settled by the company to avoid the spotlight of a trial. Story continues below advertisement 'This will open the floodgates,' said Miguel Custodio, a car crash lawyer not involved in the Tesla case. 'It will embolden a lot of people to come to court.' The case also included startling charges by lawyers for the family of the deceased, 22-year-old, Naibel Benavides Leon, and for her injured boyfriend, Dillon Angulo. They claimed Tesla either hid or lost key evidence, including data and video recorded seconds before the accident. Tesla has previously faced criticism that it is slow to cough up crucial data by relatives of other victims in Tesla crashes, accusations that the car company has denied. In this case, the plaintiffs showed Tesla had the evidence all along, despite its repeated denials, by hiring a forensic data expert who dug it up. Tesla said it made a mistake after being shown the evidence and honestly hadn't thought it was there. Get daily National news Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy 'Today's verdict is wrong,' Tesla's lawyers said in a statement, 'and only works to set back automotive safety and jeopardize Tesla's and the entire industry's efforts to develop and implement life-saving technology,' They said the plaintiffs concocted a story 'blaming the car when the driver – from day one – admitted and accepted responsibility.' The lawyers said Tesla plans to appeal. 0:41 Tesla confirms driver had autopilot engaged before crash It's not clear how much of a hit to Tesla's reputation for safety the verdict in the Miami case will make. Tesla has vastly improved its technology since the crash on a dark, rural road in Key Largo, Florida, in 2019. Story continues below advertisement But the issue of trust generally in the company came up several times in the case, including in closing arguments Thursday. The plaintiffs' lead lawyer, Brett Schreiber, said Tesla's decision to even use the term Autopilot showed it was willing to mislead people and take big risks with their lives because the system only helps drivers with lane changes, slowing a car and other tasks, falling far short of driving the car itself. Schreiber said other automakers use terms like 'driver assist' and 'copilot' to make sure drivers don't rely too much on the technology. 'Words matter,' Schreiber said. 'And if someone is playing fast and lose with words, they're playing fast and lose with information and facts.' Schreiber acknowledged that the driver, George McGee, was negligent when he blew through flashing lights, a stop sign and a T-intersection at 62 miles an hour before slamming into a Chevrolet Tahoe that the couple had parked to get a look at the stars. The Tahoe spun around so hard it was able to launch Benavides 75 feet through the air into nearby woods where her body was later found. It also left Angulo, who walked into the courtroom Firday with a limp and cushion to sit on, with broken bones and a traumatic brain injury. But Schreiber said Tesla was at fault nonetheless. He said Tesla allowed drivers to act recklessly by not disengaging the Autopilot as soon as they begin to show signs of distraction and by allowing them to use the system on smaller roads that it was not designed for, like the one McGee was driving on. Story continues below advertisement 'I trusted the technology too much,' said McGee at one point in his testimony. 'I believed that if the car saw something in front of it, it would provide a warning and apply the brakes.' The lead defense lawyer in the Miami case, Joel Smith, countered that Tesla warns drivers that they must keep their eyes on the road and hands on the wheel yet McGee chose not to do that while he looked for a dropped cell phone, adding to the danger by speeding. Noting that McGee had gone through the same intersection 30 or 40 times previously and hadn't crashed during any of those trips, Smith said that this isolates the cause to one thing alone: 'The cause is that he dropped his cell phone.' The auto industry has been watching the case closely because a finding of Tesla liability despite a driver's admission of reckless behavior would pose significant legal risks for every company as they develop cars that increasingly drive themselves.
