Tesla appeals $243 million verdict in fatal Autopilot crash suit
33 -year -old Dillon Angulo looks at a monumental sign on a roadside that reads “Secure Driving in Memory Naibel Benavidez” and next to a car accident in 2019, where a Tesla driver killed him in 2019, in 2019, in 2019.
EVA Marie Uzcatategui | Washington Post | Getty Images
Tesla In the case of a product obligation and incorrect death case, it has filed a case of appeal in the case of a product obligation that may cost the company to $ 242.5 million if it is not reduced or overthrown.
Elon Musk’s automobile manufacturer asked the launch of the decision or a new hearing in Florida’s Southern Regional Court.
Gibson DunnIn the appeal, Tesla, representing Tesla, argued that compensatory damages in the case should be reduced from a maximum of $ 129 million to $ 69 million. This will lead to a prize of $ 23 million if Tesla has risen up.
The company also argued that due to a legal limit in Florida province, it should be eliminated or reduced by up to three layers of compensatory damage.
While the team uses George McGee’s Tesla Model Sedan, Key Largo, where the company uses a partial automatic driving system Tesla Model Sedan, focused on a deadly accident in Florida.
Driving McGEE dropped his mobile phone and mixed to get it. During the hearing, he said he believed that the advanced autopilot would brake if he were on his way to an obstacle.
McGEE’s model S accelerated with a junction slightly more than 60 miles per hour and hit a nearby parked car and the owners standing on the other side of their vehicles.
The collision killed 22 -year -old Naibel Benavides and seriously injured her boyfriend Dillon Angulo.
At the beginning of this month, a jury in a Miami Federal Court said that Tesla had to pay a total of $ 242.5 million of the 329 million dollars of damage, which Tesla had to compensate for the family and the wounded surviving person.
Tesla’s lawyers in the objection movements claim that the model S is not a design defect and that even the design flaws are completely caused by the driver.
“As long as the drivers stay at the steering wheel, any security feature can strengthen a few reckless drivers while increasing security for countless others.” “Keeping Tesla responsible for providing advanced security features to drivers cannot be reconciled by the Florida law because only a reckless driver exceeds them.”
Tesla did not respond to the request for additional comments.
In this case, the plaintiff’s chief trial advisor, Brett Schreiber, said in a statement that the court “should not be seen as a claim of the autonomous vehicle industry, but Tesla’s reckless and insecure development and purification system,” he believed that he believes.
“The jury has heard all the facts, and it is a common case of responsibility, but this has concluded that the integrated role did not misrepresent the company’s skills in the accident and the company’s skills in the accident.” He said.
