Tesla Wins First Trial Over Deadly Accident Involving Autopilot

JAKARTA - As previously reported by VOI, Tesla is facing various court demands over the autopilot feature that caused a number of accidents.

Most recently, reported by Reuters, October 31, Tesla successfully won the first hearing in the United States over allegations that its Autopilot driver assistance feature was the cause of death.

Obviously this is a big win for this automotive company as it faces several lawsuits and federal investigations related to the same technology.

It is known, this will be Tesla's second win of the year in court, where the jury declined to conclude that its software was flawed.

Tesla itself has tested and launched a more advanced Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (FSD) system, which Elon Musk claims to be a crucial factor for the company's future.

Results in court show that Tesla's argument is supported by the jury if when something happens on the road, the main responsibility lies with the driver. And indeed since presenting the autopilot feature, Tesla has been very careful in advertising it where it is not allowed for motorists to entrust 100 percent of Autopilot's technological capabilities.

The lawsuit stems from a case filed at Superior County River Court claiming the Autopilot system was the cause of Micah Lee's Model 3 suddenly deviated from the highway in eastern Los Angeles at a speed of 105 km per hour, then his car hit a palm tree, and exploded into flames in seconds.

The accident that occurred in 2019 killed Lee and seriously injured two of his passengers, including a boy who was then 8 years old.

The trial involved a number of witnesses and asked the jury to provide compensation of 400 million US dollars or around Rp. 6.3 trillion.

In a trial Tesla defended itself and stated that Lee consumed alcohol before driving. The electric vehicle manufacturer also argued that it was unclear whether Autopilot was active at the time of the accident.

But in the end, a 12-member jury announced that they did not find any production defects on the vehicle.

For this result, Jonathan Michaels, the lawyer for the plaintiffs expressed disappointment with the verdict.

"The long debate from the jury shows that the verdict still leaves a shadow of uncertainty," he concluded.