SAN FRANCISCO, Sept 28 (Reuters) - Opening statements are set to begin on Thursday in the first U.S. trial over allegations that Tesla’s (TSLA.O) Autopilot driver assistant feature led to a death, and its results could help shape similar cases across the country.

The trial, in a California state court, stems from a civil lawsuit alleging the Autopilot system caused owner Micah Lee’s Model 3 to suddenly veer off a highway east of Los Angeles at 65 miles per hour (105 kph), strike a palm tree and burst into flames, all in the span of seconds.

The 2019 crash killed Lee and seriously injured his two passengers, including a then-8-year-old boy who was disemboweled, according to court documents. The lawsuit, filed against Tesla by the passengers and Lee’s estate, accuses Tesla of knowing that Autopilot and other safety systems were defective when it sold the car.

Tesla has denied liability, saying Lee consumed alcohol before getting behind the wheel. The electric-vehicle maker also claims it was not clear whether Autopilot was engaged at the time of crash.

Tesla has been testing and rolling out its Autopilot and more advanced Full Self-Driving (FSD) system, which Chief Executive Elon Musk has touted as crucial to his company’s future but which has drawn regulatory and legal scrutiny.

Tesla won a bellwether trial in Los Angeles in April with a strategy of saying that it tells drivers that its technology requires human monitoring, despite the “Autopilot” name. A Model S swerved into a curb in 2019 and injured its driver, and jurors told Reuters after the verdict that they believed Tesla warned drivers about its system and that driver distraction was to blame.

The stakes are higher in the trial this week, and in other cases, because people died. Tesla and plaintiff attorneys jousted in the runup about what evidence and arguments each side could make.

Tesla, for instance, won a bid to exclude some of Musk’s public statements about Autopilot. However, attorneys for the crash victims can argue that Lee’s blood alcohol content was below the legal limit, according to court filings.

The trial, in Riverside County Superior Court, is expected to last a few weeks.

  • TheYang@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Then it should not be called “Autopilot.” The AI required to make real autopilot work does NOT exist now and probably won’t exist for decades.

    Well, in Aviation, where I believe the term “Autopilot” is most commonly used, at least before tesla, an Autopilot is actually exactly what Tesla offers.
    When everything is fine, it can keep the plane going.
    If issues come up, it disengages and the pilot has to be able to receive full control

    /e: also, waymo and cruise already have completely autonomous cars, which generally work.

      • TheYang@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean Teslas marketing here is totally predatory, and imho this is where they should be severely punished.

        once it became kinda publicly known that Teslas “Autopilot” doesn’t mean hands off driving, they changed to Full Self Driving capability