Another 'Sudden Acceleration' lawsuit

[AnxietyRanger]

Trying to figure out where the public shaming is...

I refer to making customer conversations and data public that may embarrass them. Worse still, Tesla may give a one-sided version.

For the legal goals, Tesla could have left all that out. For customer relationship goals, they could have shown they treat their customers privately and with dignity even in times of argument. It would set a better PR predecent for other customers... and might appease a single customer (vs. aggrivating him to potentially more confrontational mode).

Call it diplomacy.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Any customer privacy rights are waived as to data that shows that the customer's public allegations are lies.

Ethically? Maybe, if it can be ascertained for certain the customer is a liar.

Is it the wisest or best PR approach? I doubt it.

And there is always the chance that Tesla is in the wrong. If Tesla concludes (or finds within their interest) to consider you a liar, and goes public, that is an unfortunate place to start a grievance should the customer actually end up having a legitimate concern. And it sends a poor signal to other customers.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

By the way, I don't agree with this "the car should have stopped before the wall" nonsense in the lawsuit. Just to be clear on that. The car simply has no such feature at this time and it is not reasonable to expect such response from pretty much any car built in 2016. Production cars don't do that yet, except some in very specific scenarios that don't involve your garage.

Would it be nice one day? Sure. Maybe we'll see some cars in 2017-2018. Maybe it will be standard in 2020. But not yet. (And there is a genuine debate to be had on the pros and cons of such features.)

What legitimate there can be in this case IMO is 1) the customer's experience (which may well be genuine, even if mistaken), 2) conversation about whatever confusion things like rapid EV acceleration, stalk and driving mode arrangements etc. design issues may cause (and what education or adjustments might be useful), and 3) debate on how Tesla should have best handled the unfortunate-for-all incident (what responses cause the best results). Those I find legitimate. The auto-stopping angle, no.

There is a fourth one, which is the extremely remote chance that the car misbehaved by error, but I do not find that likely.

 

[3Victoria]

(Obviously the car should do what I mean not what I 'say'! )

I think Tesla overriding driver inputs is generally a bad idea. Unfortunately, that means people will continue to mistake pedals and slam into walls. I think I prefer that to the car making an error in sensor readings, and a driver unable to override.

Unfortunately, any feature has an up-side and a down-side. Eg seat-belts are, on the whole, a benefit, but might be a problem if an accident results in a fire or submersion, when getting thrown clear might have helped.

 

[Az_Rael]

Unfortunately, any feature has an up-side and a down-side. Eg seat-belts are, on the whole, a benefit, but might be a problem if an accident results in a fire or submersion, when getting thrown clear might have helped.

True - and when the car gets to the point where false positives on the sensor readings are a rare edge-case, and the statistics show they are much safer than humans, then I think I would be OK with the car overriding me. I just don't think we are there yet.

 

[Tam]

...Do you understand the concept of Personal Responsibility?

The challenge is: A jury might not want to be preached or lectured and would go for the one who is suffered such as the case of elderly woman who placed her McDonalds' hot coffee cup between her knees and got burned.

The jury instructed McDonalds' to pay her $200,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages.

 

[Az_Rael]

The challenge is: A jury might not want to be preached or lectured and would go for the one who is suffered such as the case of elderly woman who placed her McDonalds' hot coffee cup between her knees and got burned.

The jury instructed McDonalds' to pay her $200,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages.

That is such a terrible example. She ended up with 3rd degree burns and was hospitalized and had to have skin grafts. Not exactly frivolous in my book.

 

[Canuck]

The problem with the legal system today is so-called "experts" some of who will say what you want to hear for the right fee. Then the judge or jury gets confused by the conflicting expert opinions and cases can be lost based on false evidence.

The challenge is: A jury might not want to be preached or lectured and would go for the one who is suffered such as the case of elderly woman who placed her McDonalds' hot coffee cup between her knees and got burned. The jury instructed McDonalds' to pay her $200,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages.

Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman who suffered third-degree burns in her pelvic region when she accidentally spilled hot coffee in her lap after purchasing it from a McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was hospitalized for eight days while she underwent skin grafting, followed by two years of medical treatment.

Detractors have argued that McDonald's refusal to offer more than an $800 settlement for the $10,500 in medical bills indicated that the suit was meritless and highlighted the fact that Liebeck spilled the coffee on herself rather than any wrongdoing on the company's part.[19][20][21]

On June 27, 2011, HBO premiered a documentary about tort reform problems titled Hot Coffee.[36] A large portion of the film covered Liebeck's lawsuit. This included news clips, comments from celebrities and politicians about the case, as well as myths and misconceptions, including how many people thought she was driving when the incident occurred and thought that she suffered only minor superficial burns. The film also discussed in great depth how Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants is often used and misused to describe a frivolous lawsuit and referenced in conjunction with tort reform efforts.[7] It contends that corporations have spent millions promoting misconceptions of tort cases in order to promote tort reform. In reality, the majority of damages in the case were punitive due to McDonalds' reckless disregard for the number of burn victims prior to Ms. Liebeck. [8]

Watch the HBO documentary since it gives some balance to this issue. While there's some merit to your suggestion, corporations would love to be immune to jury punitive awards, and there's a very good reason to punish corporations with jury punitive damage awards.

Oh, and by the way:

Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. Her past medical expenses were $10,500; her anticipated future medical expenses were approximately $2,500; and her daughter's[12] loss of income was approximately $5,000 for a total of approximately $18,000.[15] Instead, the company offered only $800. When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, Liebeck retained Texas attorney Reed Morgan. Morgan filed suit in New Mexico District Court accusing McDonald's of "gross negligence" for selling coffee that was "unreasonably dangerous" and "defectively manufactured". McDonald's refused Morgan's offer to settle for $90,000. Morgan offered to settle for $300,000, and a mediator suggested $225,000 just before trial, but McDonald's refused these final pre-trial attempts to settle.[2]

A twelve-person jury reached its verdict on August 18, 1994.[16] Applying the principles of comparative negligence, the jury found that McDonald's was 80% responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20% at fault. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck US$200,000 in compensatory damages, which was then reduced by 20% to $160,000. In addition, they awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages. The jurors apparently arrived at this figure from Morgan's suggestion to penalize McDonald's for one or two days' worth of coffee revenues, which were about $1.35 million per day.[2] The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.[18]

So she never got the 2.7 million and I have no doubt that she would return all the funds to not have gone through the pain and suffering.

 

[mmd]

Well, this fellow had his acceleration blocked because the car thought it saw a collision at an entrance ramp and it created a safety hazard for him: "Obstacle detected" - blocking acceleration - very dangerous!

I think Tesla overriding driver inputs is generally a bad idea. Unfortunately, that means people will continue to mistake pedals and slam into walls. I think I prefer that to the car making an error in sensor readings, and a driver unable to override.

Big difference between highway on-ramp in San Francisco and owner's own parking garage where the car is parked most days.
What you are further showing with that example is that the car did override driver input in that case, but was incorrect. That's what it should have done at home or while parking. I'm curious, what tesla said about that case. Did Tesla acknowledge the bug?

Well, we will have to wait and see how this unfolds. IMHO, this will get interesting.

 

[3Victoria]

True - and when the car gets to the point where false positives on the sensor readings are a rare edge-case, and the statistics show they are much safer than humans, then I think I would be OK with the car overriding me. I just don't think we are there yet.

I agree.

 

[Tam]

...should know better than to drive through stationary walls inside the owner's house....

There's a misconception that just because Tesla is so safe, its automation is so good thus, Tesla is responsible for all crashes.

The website and owner's manual both say very clearly that for Autopilot and Enhanced Autopilot, driver is responsible.

The problem is many may not bother to read then say they are misled.

Usually, the court is not very kind to those who don't read what they signed off for then go to court saying that their signatures didn't mean any thing because they are misled.

 

[McRat]

...

So she never got the 2.7 million and I have no doubt that she would return all the funds to not have gone through the pain and suffering.

Legal associations have spent millions promoting the McD's Coffee Case as good litigation.

So why does the public still see it as asinine?

Coffee has always been a burn risk. Thousands of people a year are burned with hot water, including coffee. It's the chemical nature of water, and until you can make a good cup of joe with something that has less specific heat than water, nothing will change. You might note that fried foods can burn you worse that boiled foods since oil gets substantially hotter. Just waiting for the right plaintiff for the Billion Dollar Burned My Tongue On Fries suit.

While it's terrible that the woman was injured, people get injured. Shiit happens. She was old enough to know hot coffee is hot. She should not have ordered coffee.

If it wasn't McD's, just a mom & pop hash joint, it would have never been a case. Deep pockets laws can make things look stupid to people of normal intelligence.

 

[Tam]

That is such a terrible example. She ended up with 3rd degree burns and was hospitalized and had to have skin grafts. Not exactly frivolous in my book.

I never said either 1) McDonalds' hot coffee cup between knees nor 2) Unintended Acceleration is "frivolous."

When it involves burns, damages, injuries, deaths, it's serious.

Since this is a class action suit, are you sure that the lawsuit would not mention a high-profile fatality accident in Florida either?

What I am saying is: to some, this Unintended Acceleration lawsuit is foolish and can be easily defeated with a vehicle log but I would not be so confident and I should not underestimate the plaintiff's lawyers who might be able to connect to a jury to rule against Tesla.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Interesting one from electrek.co comments:

The two sides clearly differ and this article is likewise clearly one sided. Here is his and Tesla's claim according to his interview:

1. His foot was on the brake while waiting for the garage door to open.
2. He pressed elec pedal lightly when the door was open. Tesla says he pressed 17%, therefore they agree.
3. Tesla claims that he then pressed the pedal 100% 1 sec later. He doesn't agree. (His words: you have to be crazy to press fully entering the garage, with your kid in the car no less).
4. He never threatened Tesla (about using his celebrity and demanding payment). It's Tesla's smear campaign.
5. He's suing because he is angry with Tesla's stonewalling and smear.

Just to give a little bit of perspective to how different a story can sound depending on who tells it. I guess we will know more in time.

After launching his Model X into his own living room, Tesla owner launches into smear campaign against Tesla

 

[bhzmark]

Ethically? Maybe, if it can be ascertained for certain the customer is a liar.

Is it the wisest or best PR approach? I doubt it.

And there is always the chance that Tesla is in the wrong. If Tesla concludes (or finds within their interest) to consider you a liar, and goes public, that is an unfortunate place to start a grievance should the customer actually end up having a legitimate concern. And it sends a poor signal to other customers.

Customer went public first.

Your analysis is so poor I can no longer believe anyone can be so sincerely dense. You join the troll ignore list. I'm embarrassed it took me so long and I wasted so much time.

 

[oktane]

You guys think a car with radar, ultrasonic sensors, and 8 cameras should allow itself to plow through a wall in the year 2016? I'm playing devil's advocate here, since clearly the Tesla has enough sensor suite to prevent this type of accident or at least diminish the damage. Yes likely the guy mistook the accelerator pedal for the brake but that's besides the point I'm trying to make.

I own a late model luxury car that WILL ignore the accelerator pedal if it suspects a collision is imminent and apply full brake instead.

At least it's something I'd hope Tesla would incorporate into future firmware if not already there.

 

[Tam]

Will fully operational AP2 refuse to let a Tesla drive into a wall..?!

Currently, both AP1 and AP2 requires a competent driver at all time.

That means when a human does something that the automation protocol says it's very humanly wrong and poor decision, it still has to obey the human.

 

[Canuck]

If it wasn't McD's, just a mom & pop hash joint, it would have never been a case. Deep pockets laws can make things look stupid to people of normal intelligence.

Of course, because McDonalds ignored repeated previous burn cases which lead to the punitive award. It's rare that any mom & pop would ever do that. After burning one customer they would have turned down the temp. There's no excuse at all for scalding hot coffee that leads to skin grafts, at least not in the society that I wish to live in with my 75 year old mother.

While it's terrible that the woman was injured, people get injured. Shiit happens. She was old enough to know hot coffee is hot. She should not have ordered coffee.

Go live in many third world countries where they don't follow the Donoghue v Stevenson principle of tort law and then tell me that it is better to live in your utopia where "Shiit happens" and we much just accept it. Of course, we don't have the perfect system in the States and Canada where we follow the English common-law of tort law. But it's the best of what we can develop as humans so far living in an imperfect world, at least in my view. Detractors like you always like to tear things down without telling us what you would re-construct in their place. Sure, let's bring in statutory tort reform and let corporations do as they please -- and get rid of Donoghue, right? That's the world you want to live in? Where chain restaurants can serve coffee that will scald you requiring skin grafting should it spill, as it often does. Either that or don't drink coffee. Nice choice there!

Or, perhaps, you have a better principle of law than Donoghue? If so, I'm all ears. But something tells me you have nothing at all.

Talk is cheap.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Customer went public first.

Your analysis is so poor I can no longer believe anyone can be so sincerely dense.

I guess you fail to see my point. Not that you need to agree (not at all), but your characterization of my opinion does not IMO fit what I'm saying or thinking.

My point is: a customer going public would not IMO automatically be enough for a company to go public on something, PR-smart or even ethically. Companies are larger, more powerful, more public entities in general - it is not an even match with a private customer. Thus offering the customer privacy considerations, even when the customer might be going public themselves, is often both ethical and smart. And unlike the customers, companies have other customers to think about - and those other customers might be put off by the way a company treats its customers in public.

Companies often can and do take the high road and keep their communications on specific customer-case details private. It is considered good policy. In some jurisdictions and market segments, it is even legislated that way. Consumer customers have a higher reasonable expectation of privacy compared to corporations. This is not at all uncommon - let alone "dense" - stuff.

Tesla - and you - obviously feels differently. That's fine. I'm not calling disagreement "dense" at all. It is just disagreement.

 

[FlatSix911]

Nonsense ... Tesla is just protecting the company from fraudulent lawsuits

I disagree because it is not just these cases. Tesla has also e.g. been very public about high-speed crashes too which are very sensitive for the participants and have included deaths.

Tesla clearly puts their perceived self-interest above that of customer privacy. I would say there is enough predent to say this is their current policy - right or wrong, good or bad.