A jury just ruled that Tesla was partially responsible for an auto accident and awarded $243M. Tesla was held responsible for $43M, even though the driver accepted full responsibilty. BTW, not FSD - the accident happened in 2019.

Needless to say, Tesla is going to be the only party that will pay a fraction of their portion.

"Tesla was held liable for 33% of the compensatory damages, or $42.6 million.
Jurors found the driver George McGee liable for 67%, but he was not a defendant and will not have to pay his share."

FSD, its competitors, and their follow-ons will prevent many, many traffic deaths. They could largely remove accidents caused by distracted/cell phone drivers, seasoned citizens, drunks and druggies, and young or otherwise poor drivers. But this can't happen if juries are going to sue car companies out of business because of their deep pockets.

Juries making outrageous awards because there are deep pockets is nothing new, but it is only getting more ergregious. Too many people think no harm comes from making companies pay absurd amounts, insurance fraud, and the like.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/tesla-ordered-by-florida-jury-pay-243-million-fatal-autopilot-crash-2025-08-01/

With AI, maybe the most important subject in public education should be Civics?

Of course, if we still taught Civics, most of us probably wouldn't like what liberal educators put in that course, so scratch that idea.

I've got to think there will be an appeal

Quote:

---

end of FSD?

---

Not sure if serious.

Over_ed said:

---

A jury just ruled that Tesla was partially responsible for an auto accident and awarded $243M. Tesla was held responsible for $43M, even though the driver accepted full responsibilty. BTW, not FSD - the accident happened in 2019.

Needless to say, Tesla is going to be the only party that will pay a fraction of their portion.

"Tesla was held liable for 33% of the compensatory damages, or $42.6 million.
Jurors found the driver George McGee liable for 67%, but he was not a defendant and will not have to pay his share."

FSD, its competitors, and their follow-ons will prevent many, many traffic deaths. They could largely remove accidents caused by distracted/cell phone drivers, seasoned citizens, drunks and druggies, and young or otherwise poor drivers. But this can't happen if juries are going to sue car companies out of business because of their deep pockets.

Juries making outrageous awards because there are deep pockets is nothing new, but it is only getting more ergregious. Too many people think no harm comes from making companies pay absurd amounts, insurance fraud, and the like.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/tesla-ordered-by-florida-jury-pay-243-million-fatal-autopilot-crash-2025-08-01/

With AI, maybe the most important subject in public education should be Civics?

Of course, if we still taught Civics, most of us probably wouldn't like what liberal educators put in that course, so scratch that idea.

---

I see HONDA has their talking points out!!!!

This is not going to hold up!

Quote:

---

The trial concerned an April 25, 2019 incident where George McGee drove his 2019 Model S at about 62 mph (100 kph) through an intersection into the victims' parked Chevrolet Tahoe as they were standing beside it on a shoulder.
McGee had reached down to pick up a cellphone he dropped on his car's floorboard and allegedly received no alerts as he ran a stop sign and stop light before hitting the victims' SUV.
Benavides Leon was allegedly thrown 75 feet (23 meters) to her death, while Angulo suffered serious injuries.

---

Should have been dismissed!

Quote:

---

"To be clear, no car in 2019, and none today, would have prevented this crash," the company said. "This was never about Autopilot; it was a fiction concocted by plaintiffs' lawyers blaming the car when the driver - from day one - admitted and accepted responsibility."

---

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

I've got to think there will be an appeal

---

There will be. I find it odd that the driver was not even a party to such a suit. Even if the plaintiff didn't name the driver as a defendant, Tesla could third party him in.

Confusing.

There's a 100% likelihood the drivers insurance tendered their policy limits LONG ago and they settled.

It's not confusing when you realize it's a money grab

Unless there is an entirely separate, and significant confluence of FSD leading to fatalities a la Firestone-Ford Explorer it won't be the end of FSD, let alone AI-driven cars/taxi's.

It's not going to happen, and they will get safer over time, not less-so. Oh, and btw, despite some obvious culpability Ford and Firestone are still selling Explorers and tires.

$129 mm compensatory damages?? What did the plaintiffs do for a living?!?

BCG Disciple said:

---

$129 mm compensatory damages?? What did the plaintiffs do for a living?!?

---

Human-trafficker for the cartel. Those dudes make bank, in addition to being strong Maryland dads and union members.

BCG Disciple said:

---

$129 mm compensatory damages?? What did the plaintiffs do for a living?!?

---

$34mm to the mother for pain and suffering for loss of her daughter
$24mm to the father for pain and suffering for loss of his daughter

$15mm to the guy that survived for past pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life.

$55mm to the guy that survived for those damages in the future

aggiehawg said:

---

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

I've got to think there will be an appeal

---

There will be. I find it odd that the driver was not even a party to such a suit. Even if the plaintiff didn't name the driver as a defendant, Tesla could third party him in.

Confusing.

---

It sounds like he was submitted to the jury, similar to how Texas has CPRC 33.004 (Responsible Third Party)

Im Gipper said:

---

This is not going to hold up!

Quote:

---

The trial concerned an April 25, 2019 incident where George McGee drove his 2019 Model S at about 62 mph (100 kph) through an intersection into the victims' parked Chevrolet Tahoe as they were standing beside it on a shoulder.
McGee had reached down to pick up a cellphone he dropped on his car's floorboard and allegedly received no alerts as he ran a stop sign and stop light before hitting the victims' SUV.
Benavides Leon was allegedly thrown 75 feet (23 meters) to her death, while Angulo suffered serious injuries.

---

Should have been dismissed!

Quote:

---

"To be clear, no car in 2019, and none today, would have prevented this crash," the company said. "This was never about Autopilot; it was a fiction concocted by plaintiffs' lawyers blaming the car when the driver - from day one - admitted and accepted responsibility."

---

---

Of course Tesla is going to say that, but that doesn't address why they're liable

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/01/tesla-must-pay-329-million-in-damages-in-fatal-autopilot-case.html

Quote:

---

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.

---

The point of this case was that the driver was relying on autopilot, and that's why he took his eyes off the road like he did. That's why the jury found Tesla partially responsible. Autopilot and FSD have been a liability for Tesla for years because of stark differences in how they're marketed and the fine print in the owner's manual.

For one, the name autopilot was specifically chosen to communicate and market the idea of a self-driving capability. For two, many of Tesla's marketing materials showed drivers without their hands on the wheel, further suggesting the ability of the car to drive itself. They led many drivers to believe that the system was much more capable and advanced than it really was

To cover their ass, they insisted in their owner's manuals that it was in fact not fully capable and that drivers needed to pay attention to the road at all times, maintain their hands on the steering wheel, and be prepared to take over from the vehicle at any moment. They still have these requirements.

Whether the system could have prevented this accident is irrelevant because the claim is not that it failed to. The claim is that Tesla led the driver to think that it would, causing his false sense of security. He would not have bent down to grab his phone and would have been paying attention if he were driving any other car, but Tesla led him to believe that he could do this safely when in fact he couldn't. Tesla says, "Hey! Look at the fine print! Not our fault!" The plaintiff says, "Yeah, but look at the marketing promos. You also call it, 'Autopilot' like it drives itself instead of, 'Driver Assist' like you disclaim it to be."

driver was a settling party, so automatically submitted under 33.002 in texas

America is in desperate need of major tort reform. The reason we never get it is because most of the lawmakers are lawyers and most lawyers want these outrageous awards.

I He took his eye off the road, and it's someone else fault that he ran through an intersection and rear-ended a stopped car to get his phone on the floor.

A personal injury attorney just wants his 30%.
Tesla will attorney fee him until council throws in the towel as billable hours mount.

So it's worse than I described!

Tesla is liable because the idiot driver thought he had a fully driving car that didn't even exist when purchased?

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

A personal injury attorney just wants his 30%.

Tesla will attorney fee him until council throws in the towel as billable hours mount.

---

Who wants to tell him?

pfo said:

---

America is in desperate need of major tort reform. The reason we never get it is because most of the lawmakers are lawyers and most lawyers want these outrageous awards.

---

Florida just went through major tort reform a view years ago. Most of these verdicts get heavily reduced on appeal, either by the appellate courts or through settlement. You never hear the real amount paid because insurance and companies insist on confidentiality.

Im Gipper said:

---

So it's worse than I described!

Tesla is liable because the idiot driver thought he had a fully driving car that didn't even exist when purchased?

---

Tesla is liable because they said it existed when it didn't

Over_ed said:

---

With AI, maybe the most important subject in public education should be Civics?

Of course, if we still taught Civics, most of us probably wouldn't like what liberal educators put in that course, so scratch that idea.

---

I don't think we can teach Hondas anything. They aren't smart cars

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

So it's worse than I described!

Tesla is liable because the idiot driver thought he had a fully driving car that didn't even exist when purchased?

---

Tesla is liable because they said it existed when it didn't

---

No, they didn't.

Teslag said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

So it's worse than I described!

Tesla is liable because the idiot driver thought he had a fully driving car that didn't even exist when purchased?

---

Tesla is liable because they said it existed when it didn't

---

No, they didn't.

---

Oh ok...

"Hey! Look at this self-driving technology! Buy a Tesla because it'll appreciate in value because you'll be able to rent it out and it'll drive itself around. We call it Autopilot because it's so much more than just driver assist! You don't even need hands!"
/Tesla

"Oh, that's cool! It'll drive itself!"
*Bends down to get phone*
*Crash*
"I thought it would warm me or stop or something."
/Driver

"Weellllllllll... We never technically said that. We just marketed the idea. There's a difference. Didn't you read all the fine print in the owner's manual?"
/Tesla

Ag with kids said:

---

Over_ed said:

---

With AI, maybe the most important subject in public education should be Civics?

Of course, if we still taught Civics, most of us probably wouldn't like what liberal educators put in that course, so scratch that idea.

---

I see HONDA has their talking points out!!!!

---

:-)

Yes, they did. They even made a video.

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2023-11-23/lawsuit-blaming-teslas-autopilot-for-drivers-death-can-go-to-trial-judge-rules

Quote:

---

Banner's attorneys have argued that by naming the system Autopilot, Musk and Tesla implied that the cars are self-driving and don't require the driver's full attention. They also cite numerous comments Musk made years before 50-year-old Jeremy Banner's crash saying that Autopilot was already better than human drivers and would soon be autonomous.

The attorneys also point to a 2016 marketing video for Autopilot that is still on the company's website. It begins with a statement reading, "The person in the driver's seat is only there for legal reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself."

The Tesla then maneuvers through a town on winding roads in traffic. It halts at traffic lights and stop signs, avoids other cars, pedestrians and bicyclists and speeds up and slows down as appropriate. It then parallel parks itself. The camera is positioned to show that the man in the driver's seat never touches the steering wheel or pedals.

Under questioning by Banner's attorneys, Tesla employees revealed that the car in the ad was programmed with mapping software not available to the public and "still performed poorly and even ran into a fence while filming." The video required several takes and was heavily edited, the attorneys say.

Scott wrote that after reviewing the evidence, he could not "imagine how some ordinary consumers would not have some belief that the Tesla vehicles were capable of driving themselves hands free."

---

Tesla owners and fanboys were already talking about the capabilities being oversold and luring people into a false sense of security 6 years ago.

https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/the-%C2%ABfull%C2%BB-in-full-self-driving-capability.144435/page-3

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

So it's worse than I described!

Tesla is liable because the idiot driver thought he had a fully driving car that didn't even exist when purchased?

---

Tesla is liable because they said it existed when it didn't

---

No, they didn't.

---

Oh ok...

"Hey! Look at this self-driving technology! Buy a Tesla because it'll appreciate in value because you'll be able to rent it out and it'll drive itself around. We call it Autopilot because it's so much more than just driver assist! You don't even need hands!"
/Tesla

"Oh, that's cool! It'll drive itself!"
*Bends down to get phone*
*Crash*
"I thought it would warm me or stop or something."
/Driver

"Weellllllllll... We never technically said that. We just marketed the idea. There's a difference. Didn't you read all the fine print in the owner's manual?"
/Tesla

---

Holy reach Batman

Don't look above you then...

I drive with autopilot. Sometimes completely play my phone or watch videos while driving. As a driver I took the responsibility to be completely and 100% responsible if something goes wrong.

No one wants to take responsibility anymore.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Don't look above you then...

---

It's another reach. You get behind the wheel it's 100% your responsibility.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

end of FSD?

---

Not sure if serious.

---

End of FSD?

It was the sub-heading of the original article I saw, then looked for a non-paywalled source.

I am looking forward to having FSD as I get older, so I think it will gain momentum. But I also feel that irrational juries, particularly in blue states, could make it difficult for Musk and owners getting insurance. Talk about driving with a target on your back. Better off in a Pinto.

Florida will probably overrule/or greatly reduce; I am not sure that will be the case for California or Washington.

You don't need too many $40M judgements to hurt, and nobody in DC is likely to help Musk.

Besides, a little dramatic license ain't all bad.

Teslag said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Don't look above you then...

---

It's another reach. You get behind the wheel it's 100% your responsibility.

---

When you market a system as self-driving and someone relies on that claim, then you also bear responsibility. This guy shouldn't have taken his eyes off the road, but Tesla shouldn't have told the world their cars drove themselves and didn't even need people in the driver's seat.

The only thing that is relevant is this: did the driver understand that he was supposed to keep his hands on the wheel and eyes on the road.

Tesla's vehicle system displays warnings each time Autosteer is engaged, with a clear message stating you must keep your hands on the steering wheel and be prepared to take control at any time.

Unless the driver was deaf, he knew the requirements and ignored them.

Bad decision by this jury.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Yes, they did. They even made a video.

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2023-11-23/lawsuit-blaming-teslas-autopilot-for-drivers-death-can-go-to-trial-judge-rules

Quote:

---

Banner's attorneys have argued that by naming the system Autopilot, Musk and Tesla implied that the cars are self-driving and don't require the driver's full attention. They also cite numerous comments Musk made years before 50-year-old Jeremy Banner's crash saying that Autopilot was already better than human drivers and would soon be autonomous.

The attorneys also point to a 2016 marketing video for Autopilot that is still on the company's website. It begins with a statement reading, "The person in the driver's seat is only there for legal reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself."

The Tesla then maneuvers through a town on winding roads in traffic. It halts at traffic lights and stop signs, avoids other cars, pedestrians and bicyclists and speeds up and slows down as appropriate. It then parallel parks itself. The camera is positioned to show that the man in the driver's seat never touches the steering wheel or pedals.

Under questioning by Banner's attorneys, Tesla employees revealed that the car in the ad was programmed with mapping software not available to the public and "still performed poorly and even ran into a fence while filming." The video required several takes and was heavily edited, the attorneys say.

Scott wrote that after reviewing the evidence, he could not "imagine how some ordinary consumers would not have some belief that the Tesla vehicles were capable of driving themselves hands free."

---

Tesla owners and fanboys were already talking about the capabilities being oversold and luring people into a false sense of security 6 years ago.

https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/the-%C2%ABfull%C2%BB-in-full-self-driving-capability.144435/page-3

---

Is autopilot on at all times? Or does autopilot require driver activation?