5 ms·

> https://electrek.co/2025/08/01/tesla-tsla-is-found-liable-in-fatal-autopilot-crash-has-to-pay-329-million/ https://electrek.co/2025/08/01/tesla-tsla-is-found-

by cnst 1y ago

> https://electrek.co/2025/08/01/tesla-tsla-is-found-liable-in-fatal-autopilot-crash-has-to-pay-329-million/ https://electrek.co/2025/08/01/tesla-tsla-is-found-liable-in... > Update: Tesla’s lawyers sent us the following comment about the verdict: > Today’s verdict is wrong and only works to set back automotive safety and jeopardize Tesla’s and the entire industry’s efforts to develop and implement life-saving technology. We plan to appeal given the substantial errors of law and irregularities at trial. Even though this jury found that the driver was overwhelmingly responsible for this tragic accident in 2019, the evidence has always shown that this driver was solely at fault because he was speeding, with his foot on the accelerator – which overrode Autopilot – as he rummaged for his dropped phone without his eyes on the road. To be clear, no car in 2019, and none today, would have prevented this crash. 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. --- Personally, I don't understand how people can possibly be happy with such verdicts. Recently in 2025, DJI got rid of their geofences as well, because it's the operator's responsibility to control their equipment. IIRC, DJI did have support of the FAA in their actions of removing the geofencing limitations. With FAA expressly confirming that geofencing is not mandated. These sorts of verdicts that blame the manufacturer for operator errors, are exactly why we can't have nice things. It's why we get WiFi and 5G radios, and boot loaders, that are binary-locked, with no source code availability, and which cannot be used with BSD or Linux easily, and why it's not possible to override anything anywhere anymore. Even as a pedestrian, I'm glad that Tesla is fighting the good fight here. Because next thing I know, these courts will cause the phone manufacturers to disable your phone if you're walking next to a highway.

ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
I agree. This hurts competent people who want to have responsibility and the freedom that brings.
- addaon 1y ago
  > This hurts competent people who want to have responsibility and the freedom that brings. Perhaps, but does it hurt more or less than getting life-changing injuries and your partner killed by a Tesla?
  - cnst 1y ago
    So, we have to ignore the entire safety record for the entire technology just because one operator has failed to follow the instructions? This is especially the case for something that was in its infancy back in 2019 when this crash happened. And you know what we have in 2025 because of those restrictions being enforced since then? In 2025, Tesla's nag drivers so much, for not paying attention to the road, that drivers no longer keep the much safer versions of autopilot engaged at all, when looking for their phones. Instead, now, because the issue is "fixed", Tesla drivers simply do the same thing what drivers of any other car do in the situation. They disable autopilot first, and only then stop paying attention to the road, looking for their phone. How's that safer? We're precisely less safe because of these regulatory requirements. (And, add insult to injury, this court is now using the hindsight 20/20, of these warnings subsequently being implemented, as evidence of Tesla's wrongdoing in 2019, at a time before anything like that was thought to be possible? Even though, now that these warnings were implemented, we already have evidence that these nags themselves make everybody less safe, since autopilot is simply turned off when you need to stop paying attention to the road?)
    - Veserv 1y ago
      What safety record are we ignoring? Can you please cite some scientifically rigorous and statistically sound data, evidence, and analysis? Or are you talking about self-published numbers by the company that is proven to withhold, lie, and misdirect in even official police investigations, subpoenas, and trials where it is actively illegal to do so? Are we talking numbers with a degree of scientific rigor unfit for publication in a middle school science fair, let alone the minimum standard of scientifically rigorous that members of their team had to achieve to get their degrees, yet somehow fail to do when detailing systems that are literally responsible for the life and death of humans?
      - cnst 1y ago
        So where's your unbiased data then? Where's your data that these nags make everyone safer, when it's widely known that they simply result in people turning off the entire autopilot/FSD when the operator needs to stop paying attention to the road, to avoid the nags and the penalty strikes? Where's all the news reports about the crashes without the autopilot engaged? If they were as rare as the autopilot ones, surely we'd have seen some of them covered by the media, right? Or are they so rare that not a single one has happened yet, hence, the lack of any reports being available?
- kanbara 1y ago
  the great thing is that we live in a society controlled by laws and corporations cant get away with testing everything they want on public roads. your freedom or desire for “responsibility” doesn’t negate others’ rights
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
    The right to negligently operate a vehicle?
tzs 1y ago
There's an interesting philosophical debate about the nature of product liability laws. Suppose I'm selling some gadget which when used correctly is safe, and I've taken all reasonable steps possible to try to make it hard for people to use it incorrectly. Nevertheless people sometimes still manage to use it in an incorrect way that injures their hands such that it will take a year of treatment and physical therapy before they can use their hands again. Some people view the point of product liability laws is to make those who are to blame for the injury pay. Under that view I'd not be on the hook. Another point of view is that it should be about who can most efficiently handle dealing with these injuries. Either someone is going to have to pay for the treatment and therapy to enable these people to use their hands again or they are going to probably end up on disability for the rest of their lives which will be paid for by government (and so indirectly by most of the rest of us). Who should that someone be? One candidate is the user's health insurance company. One problem with that is that in the US there are plenty of people without health insurance. They would be able to get free treatment right after the injury at any emergency room if they can't afford to pay for that treatment, but that would only get them to the point they aren't in any more danger. It would not include the follow ups needed to actually restore function, so there is still a good chance they will end up on disability. Also that "free" emergency room treatment will actually be paid for by higher costs for the rest of us. Even if the user does have insurance that pays for their treatment and therapy, ultimately that money is coming from premiums of the people that use that insurance company. This health insurance approach then ultimately comes down to socializing the cost among some combination of two broad groups: (1) those who have health insurance, and (2) taxpayers in general. Another candidate is me, the gadget maker. Make it so I am liable for these injuries regardless of who was at fault. I know exactly how many of these gadgets are out there. If all injury claims from people using them go through me I'll have full data on injury rates and severity. That puts me in a good position to figure out how much to raise the price of my gadgets to establish and maintain a fund to pay out for the injuries. This still socializes the costs, but now instead of socializing it across those two broad groups (everyone with health insurance and taxpayers) it is getting socialized across all purchasers of my gadgets. The people who favor this strict liability approach also argue that I'm the best candidate for this because I'm in the best position to try to reduce injuries. If health insurance companies were the ones dealing with it and they noticed injury rates are going up there isn't really anything they can do about that other than raise premiums to cover it. If I'm the one dealing with it and notice injury rates are going up I can deal with it the same way--raise prices so my injury fund can cope with the rising injuries. But I also have the option to make changes to the gadgets such as adding extra safety features to reduce injuries. I might come out ahead going that route and then everybody wins.

by cnst 1y ago

ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago

I agree. This hurts competent people who want to have responsibility and the freedom that brings.

addaon 1y ago
> This hurts competent people who want to have responsibility and the freedom that brings. Perhaps, but does it hurt more or less than getting life-changing injuries and your partner killed by a Tesla?
- cnst 1y ago
  So, we have to ignore the entire safety record for the entire technology just because one operator has failed to follow the instructions? This is especially the case for something that was in its infancy back in 2019 when this crash happened. And you know what we have in 2025 because of those restrictions being enforced since then? In 2025, Tesla's nag drivers so much, for not paying attention to the road, that drivers no longer keep the much safer versions of autopilot engaged at all, when looking for their phones. Instead, now, because the issue is "fixed", Tesla drivers simply do the same thing what drivers of any other car do in the situation. They disable autopilot first, and only then stop paying attention to the road, looking for their phone. How's that safer? We're precisely less safe because of these regulatory requirements. (And, add insult to injury, this court is now using the hindsight 20/20, of these warnings subsequently being implemented, as evidence of Tesla's wrongdoing in 2019, at a time before anything like that was thought to be possible? Even though, now that these warnings were implemented, we already have evidence that these nags themselves make everybody less safe, since autopilot is simply turned off when you need to stop paying attention to the road?)
  - Veserv 1y ago
    What safety record are we ignoring? Can you please cite some scientifically rigorous and statistically sound data, evidence, and analysis? Or are you talking about self-published numbers by the company that is proven to withhold, lie, and misdirect in even official police investigations, subpoenas, and trials where it is actively illegal to do so? Are we talking numbers with a degree of scientific rigor unfit for publication in a middle school science fair, let alone the minimum standard of scientifically rigorous that members of their team had to achieve to get their degrees, yet somehow fail to do when detailing systems that are literally responsible for the life and death of humans?
    - cnst 1y ago
      So where's your unbiased data then? Where's your data that these nags make everyone safer, when it's widely known that they simply result in people turning off the entire autopilot/FSD when the operator needs to stop paying attention to the road, to avoid the nags and the penalty strikes? Where's all the news reports about the crashes without the autopilot engaged? If they were as rare as the autopilot ones, surely we'd have seen some of them covered by the media, right? Or are they so rare that not a single one has happened yet, hence, the lack of any reports being available?
kanbara 1y ago
the great thing is that we live in a society controlled by laws and corporations cant get away with testing everything they want on public roads. your freedom or desire for “responsibility” doesn’t negate others’ rights
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
  The right to negligently operate a vehicle?

tzs 1y ago

There's an interesting philosophical debate about the nature of product liability laws. Suppose I'm selling some gadget which when used correctly is safe, and I've taken all reasonable steps possible to try to make it hard for people to use it incorrectly. Nevertheless people sometimes still manage to use it in an incorrect way that injures their hands such that it will take a year of treatment and physical therapy before they can use their hands again. Some people view the point of product liability laws is to make those who are to blame for the injury pay. Under that view I'd not be on the hook. Another point of view is that it should be about who can most efficiently handle dealing with these injuries. Either someone is going to have to pay for the treatment and therapy to enable these people to use their hands again or they are going to probably end up on disability for the rest of their lives which will be paid for by government (and so indirectly by most of the rest of us). Who should that someone be? One candidate is the user's health insurance company. One problem with that is that in the US there are plenty of people without health insurance. They would be able to get free treatment right after the injury at any emergency room if they can't afford to pay for that treatment, but that would only get them to the point they aren't in any more danger. It would not include the follow ups needed to actually restore function, so there is still a good chance they will end up on disability. Also that "free" emergency room treatment will actually be paid for by higher costs for the rest of us. Even if the user does have insurance that pays for their treatment and therapy, ultimately that money is coming from premiums of the people that use that insurance company. This health insurance approach then ultimately comes down to socializing the cost among some combination of two broad groups: (1) those who have health insurance, and (2) taxpayers in general. Another candidate is me, the gadget maker. Make it so I am liable for these injuries regardless of who was at fault. I know exactly how many of these gadgets are out there. If all injury claims from people using them go through me I'll have full data on injury rates and severity. That puts me in a good position to figure out how much to raise the price of my gadgets to establish and maintain a fund to pay out for the injuries. This still socializes the costs, but now instead of socializing it across those two broad groups (everyone with health insurance and taxpayers) it is getting socialized across all purchasers of my gadgets. The people who favor this strict liability approach also argue that I'm the best candidate for this because I'm in the best position to try to reduce injuries. If health insurance companies were the ones dealing with it and they noticed injury rates are going up there isn't really anything they can do about that other than raise premiums to cover it. If I'm the one dealing with it and notice injury rates are going up I can deal with it the same way--raise prices so my injury fund can cope with the rising injuries. But I also have the option to make changes to the gadgets such as adding extra safety features to reduce injuries. I might come out ahead going that route and then everybody wins.