Tesla Asks Court to Toss $243M Autopilot Verdict

Tesla moves to overturn $243M Autopilot verdict

Tesla asked a Florida court on Friday to throw out a jury verdict that assigned partial blame to its Autopilot software for a 2019 crash that killed 22-year-old Naibel Benavides and severely injured her boyfriend.

Earlier this month a jury ordered Tesla to pay $243 million in compensatory and punitive damages after finding shared responsibility between the driver and the company’s partially autonomous system. The award surprised many, given Tesla’s history of avoiding large verdicts tied to its driver-assist technology.

In its motion, Tesla argues the driver pressed the accelerator and thereby overrode Autopilot seconds before the impact, making the motorist solely responsible. The company also asks the court to exclude Elon Musk’s past public statements about autonomy from evidence, saying those comments unfairly prejudiced the jury.

Tesla called allegations that it withheld camera data from police "inflamed" and false. The filing seeks either to invalidate the verdict entirely or to secure a new trial, arguing the judgment violates basic tort law and due process.

Plaintiff counsel pushed back, saying the verdict reflects shared responsibility and that Autopilot’s misrepresentations played an integral role. The plaintiffs’ statement promised confidence the court will uphold the jury’s decision.

Why this case matters beyond one trial

The dispute cuts to core tensions in autonomous-vehicle deployment: where blame lies when a human driver and an AI system interact, how companies communicate system limits, and how evidence from cameras and telemetry is preserved and interpreted. Think of it as the legal equivalent of the human-AI handoff problem.

Courts will weigh technical facts—brake and accelerator inputs, system status logs, video data—alongside promotional statements and user expectations. That mix makes these cases as much about engineering transparency and data governance as about traditional product liability.

• Was Autopilot engaged and behaving within design parameters?
• Did driver inputs override or contradict the system?
• Were public statements and marketing material likely to create unreasonable expectations?

For the industry, the stakes are clear: large verdicts can shape product design, force stricter disclosures, and push regulators to tighten requirements for how autonomy is tested, labeled, and audited.

What companies and regulators should watch next

Expect appeals, intense scrutiny of telemetry and video evidence, and renewed calls for clearer consumer-facing labels about system limits. The outcome could influence how safe-by-design practices and forensic transparency become legal expectations rather than best practices.

Whether this verdict stands will hinge on technical detail and legal precedent. For companies building driver-assist systems, the case is a reminder: ambiguous language about autonomy and opaque data practices aren't just public-relations risks—they carry legal and financial exposure.

As the legal process continues, stakeholders from manufacturers to policymakers will be watching closely. The case is less about one company and more about how societies allocate responsibility when humans and algorithms share control.