Jury Orders Tesla to Pay $243 Million in Florida Autopilot Crash Case

Elon Musk’s company found partly liable for deadly collision involving driver assist technology

Tone & Political Bias: Moderately Center-Leaning

Why: The article presents both plaintiff and defense arguments, includes quotes from Tesla and victims' families, and avoids overt editorializing. However, it emphasizes Tesla’s past behavior and language use, raising moderate concerns about corporate responsibility.

The Verdict

A federal jury in Miami has ordered Tesla to pay over $243 million in damages following a 2019 crash in Key Largo, Florida, involving its Autopilot system. The incident killed 22-year-old Naibel Benavides Leon and severely injured her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo.

The jury found Tesla’s technology partly responsible for the collision, even though the driver, George McGee, admitted to being distracted by his cellphone at the time of the crash.

Case Background

The crash occurred on a dark rural road when McGee’s Tesla ran through flashing lights, a stop sign, and a T-intersection at 62 mph, slamming into a parked Chevrolet Tahoe. The vehicle was parked by the couple while stargazing. Benavides was thrown 75 feet from the crash site and died. Angulo sustained broken bones and a traumatic brain injury.

Jury Breakdown of Damages

• $200 million in punitive damages

• $129 million in compensatory damages, split among responsible parties

  • Tesla’s share: $43 million

    
    

Total liability for Tesla: $243 million, though the company argues a pre-trial agreement could cap this at $172 million, depending on how damages are calculated.

Key Legal Arguments

• Plaintiff’s Position:Lead attorney Brett Schreiber argued Tesla was at fault for:

  • Allowing Autopilot on roads it wasn’t designed for

  • Not disengaging Autopilot when drivers showed signs of distraction

  • Misleading users by calling the system “Autopilot” rather than “driver assist”

  Schreiber stated, “Words matter. If someone is playing fast and loose with words, they’re playing fast and loose with facts.”

  
  

• Defense Position:Tesla's lawyer Joel Smith emphasized that the company:

  • Clearly warns drivers to stay attentive

  • Should not be blamed for McGee’s personal choices

  • Noted McGee had driven the same intersection 30–40 times without incident

  Smith stated, “The cause is that he dropped his cellphone.”

  
  

Evidence Dispute

The plaintiffs accused Tesla of withholding or losing key data, including footage and telemetry from just before the crash. Tesla initially denied that the data existed. A forensic data expert hired by the plaintiffs later recovered the missing files, suggesting Tesla had them all along. Tesla admitted it made a mistake in overlooking the data but denied acting in bad faith.

Industry Impact

Legal and financial analysts expect the verdict to ripple through the auto industry:

• Miguel Custodio, a car crash attorney, said: “This will open the floodgates.”

• Dan Ives, of Wedbush Securities, described the $243 million verdict as a “shockwave” that could impact future litigation and development of autonomous systems.

  
  

The case marks one of the few lawsuits over Tesla’s Autopilot that went to trial, as most are either dismissed or settled privately.

Tesla’s Response and Appeal

Tesla issued a statement calling the verdict “wrong” and claiming it “sets back automotive safety”. The company insists the driver was solely at fault and plans to appeal the jury's decision. Despite the verdict, Tesla maintains that its Autopilot system has improved significantly since 2019. The company also continues to promote plans for a driverless taxi service, expected to launch in select cities in the coming months.

The Broader Debate

The case reignites concerns over the branding and real-world performance of driver assistance systems:

• Tesla uses the term “Autopilot”, while other automakers use clearer terms like “driver assist” or “copilot”

• Critics argue this leads to overconfidence and misuse of the technology

  
  

Even McGee acknowledged this issue during the trial, saying:“I trusted the technology too much. I believed that if the car saw something in front of it, it would provide a warning and apply the brakes.”

What’s Next

The case sets a precedent for holding manufacturers accountable even when human error is admitted. Legal observers say this could affect how companies design, label, and defend their semi-autonomous systems going forward. Tesla’s appeal will now determine whether the $243 million jury decision will stand—or be reduced under the pre-trial agreement.