How a fatal crash put Tesla’s Autopilot on trial and raised new questions about driver responsibility

How a fatal crash put Tesla’s Autopilot on trial and raised new questions about driver responsibility

In a federal courtroom civil trial involving high stakes, a Florida motorist last week took the witness stand to say Tesla's Autopilot technology failed to alert him or suddenly brake before his 2019 deadly crash. George Brian McGee, 48, was driving his Tesla Model S when he crashed into an idling SUV at 62 miles per hour, killing 22-year-old Naibel Benavides and injuring her friend, Dillon Angulo, seriously. McGee explained that he had looked away from the road to reach for his phone, but assured the jury that he had used the car's Autopilot technology to assist him and prevent a collision, the New York Times reported.

Legal challenge aims at Tesla's self-driving claims

The suit, filed by Benavides's family and Angulo, says that Tesla's Autopilot was faulty since it failed to detect the obstacle or engage emergency braking. The plaintiffs argue that Tesla's system is defective not only in design but also in how it causes drivers to over-rely on automation. Judge Beth Bloom has ruled that the plaintiffs are entitled to seek damages, penning that it was reasonable a jury could conclude that Tesla acted with "reckless disregard for human life" in designing its product.

Tesla's core promise in jeopardy

The case is important for Tesla and CEO Elon Musk, who have turned the company's brand into autonomous driving. Losing would damage Tesla's reputation, pull sales down, and shake investor confidence in its autonomous ambitions. "All of the stock value in the company is based on the future, and the future is autonomous," said Sam Fiorani of AutoForecast Solutions. The automaker is now piloting autonomous cab rides in Texas and further developing its Full Self-Driving software.

Company attributes fault to driver, not system

Michael Dean, a lawyer representing Tesla, argues that McGee was responsible for the wreck by himself. "This is not about Autopilot," attorney Joel Smith informed the court. "He's scrambling around for his phone and blows through the intersection." Court testimony showed McGee had his pedal to the floorboard when the crash occurred, overruling Autopilot's braking systems and breaking the road's 45 mph speed limit. Tesla contends the system was never intended to be employed on divided roads like Card Sound Road, where the crash happened.

Experts reference system flaws and misuse

The plaintiffs presented video evidence that Autopilot did notice the SUV and pedestrians but didn't respond. They also cited other Tesla safety features—automatic emergency braking and road departure avoidance—of which should have intervened. Mary Cummings, a professor at George Mason University and expert in autonomous systems, testified that Autopilot is defective because it allows usage on roads outside of its safe design space.

Weak driver monitoring under fire

One of these issues is Tesla's mechanism to keep the driver alert. McGee's vehicle required only periodic touch of the steering wheel to confirm wakefulness, without any ability to sense head or eye motion. Autopilot has been said to have continued even when McGee had his hands off the wheel for minutes. Cummings called this a "crucial safety gap." Tesla patched its driver monitoring software in 2023 with a recall, but the crash echoes lingering concerns about how the system is deployed.

A test of accountability in the age of automation

This case raises fundamental questions regarding who is responsible when automation fails: the driver, the system, or both. Tesla faces mounting pressure from regulators and the public over the safety of its Autopilot and Full Self-Driving technology. The outcome of the Miami trial could set a precedent for the way U.S. courts view semi-autonomous driving technology—and whether or not Tesla can continue to market a self-driving future without stronger safeguards.