
Tesla's Autopilot system is in the spotlight at a Miami trial over a student killed while stargazing
Elon Musk
's car company began Monday in Miami where a jury will decide if it is partly to blame for the death of a
stargazing university student
after a runaway Tesla sent her flying 75 feet through the air and severely injured her boyfriend.
Lawyers for the plaintiff argue that Tesla's driver-assistance feature called Autopilot should have warned the driver and braked when his Model S sedan blew through flashing red lights, a stop sign and a T-intersection at nearly 70 miles an hour in the April 2019 crash. Tesla lays the blame solely on the driver, who was reaching for a dropped cell phone.
"The evidence clearly shows that this crash had nothing to do with Tesla's Autopilot technology," Tesla said in a statement. "Instead, like so many unfortunate accidents since cellphones were invented, this was caused by a distracted driver."
The driver, George McGee, was sued separately by the plaintiffs. That case was settled.
A judgement against Tesla could be especially damaging as the company works to convince the public its
self-driving technology
is safe during a planned rollout of hundreds of thousands of Tesla robotaxis on U.S. roads by the end of next year. A jury trial is rare for the company, whose suits over crashes are often dismissed or settled, and this one is rarer yet because a judge recently ruled that the family of the stricken
Naibel Benavides Leon
can argue for punitive damages.
The judge, Beth Bloom of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, issued a partial summary judgement last month, throwing out charges of defective manufacturing and negligent misrepresentation against Tesla. But she also ruled plaintiffs could argue other claims that would make the company liable and ask for punitive damages, which could prove costly.
"A reasonable jury could find that Tesla acted in reckless disregard of human life for the sake of developing their product and maximizing profit," Bloom said in a filing.
The 2021 lawsuit alleges the driver relied on Autopilot to reduce speed or come to a stop when it detected objects in its way, including a parked Chevrolet Tahoe that Benavides and her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo, had gotten out of near Key West, Florida, to look up at the sky. The Tesla rammed the Tahoe at highway speeds, causing it to rotate and slam into Benavides, tossing her into a wooded area and killing her.
In legal documents, Tesla denied nearly all of the lawsuit's allegations and said it expects that consumers will follow warnings in the vehicle and instructions in the owners' manual, as well as comply with driving laws. Tesla warns owners in manuals that its cars cannot drive themselves and they need to be ready to intervene at all times.
Plaintiff lawyers argue that Tesla should have a geofenced its Autopilot so it only worked on the big roads it was designed for and drivers couldn't use it on smaller roads such as the rural one where Benavides was killed. They also say data and video evidence shows the Autopilot did detect the Tahoe but then failed to warn the driver as they claim it should have done.
Tesla has since improved its driver-assistance and partial self-driving features, but still faces lawsuits and investigations over what critics say is a gap between its exaggerated depictions of how well they work and what they can actually do.
Federal auto safety regulators recalled 2.3 million Teslas in 2023 for problems with Autopilot failing to sufficiently alert drivers if they weren't paying attention to the road. They then put Tesla under investigation last year for saying it fixed the problem though it was unclear it actually did that.
Musk has also continued to make public comments suggesting Tesla's "Full Self-Driving" technology, a more advanced version of Autopilot, allows cars to drive themselves, despite warnings from regulators not to do so because it could lead to overreliance on the systems, crashes and deaths. That technology has been involved in three fatal crashes and is under investigation of its ability to see in low-visibility conditions such as sunlight glare or fog.
Tesla is promising a much more robust self-driving technology to power its robotaxis with no one behind the wheel. A test run in Austin, Texas, of the taxis appears to have gone mostly well, though there are scattered problems, such as a case when one cab went down the opposing lane.
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.