Bloomberg Tesla Autopilot Accident Story Today

[Electroman]

That is true. I have sometimes flicked the gear stalk by mistake (instead of wipers) and put myself in neutral and not realizing, and have felt like the car accelerating, although all that is happening is no regen

 

[Joeski1]

“But now I feel like this is extremely dangerous. It gives you a false sense of security. I’m not ready to be a test pilot. It missed the curve and drove straight into the guardrail. The car didn’t stop -- it actually continued to accelerate after the first impact into the guardrail.”

NOT EXACTLY WHAT I"D CALL A "VOTE" OF CONFIDENCE!!!

no truer words were ever spoken w/regards to AP

the only 'creed" I ever took.. was to God, country , and honesty... nowhere did I see signing an oath to misrepresent the facts or lie on behalf of TESLA in the paperwork I saw regarding a sale...

 

[MSullivan]

I just can't believe the stupidity of people.
Autopilot is a great fail safe for looking down to change the radio station, grab your coffee, etc. Not for cleaning your screen.

 

[Electroman]

Why can't these idiots do all their cleaning and stuff on a simple stretch on a divided highway. It works phenomenally well in those conditions

Joeski1: have you used AP for any reasonable length of time ? If not I would suggest be on the sidelines and listen to folks who have.

 

[theslimshadyist]

Another day, another AP story. As the world turns...

 

[Az_Rael]

Why can't these idiots do all their cleaning and stuff on a simple stretch on a divided highway. It works phenomenally well in those conditions

Um, it was a simple stretch of divided highway.

While we don't know exactly where on 175 he was, here is an example of what the road looks like:
Google Maps

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

I'm curious to see if the insurance company will actually go ahead with the lawsuit, and on what grounds.

The driver admitted to not paying attention, and there are clear disclaimers every time you engage autopilot.

The driver said it was dangerous because it gave him a false sense of security since it performed so well on this same stretch of road. But, that could be said for a lot of driver assist packages.

Adaptive cruise control like TACC works great MOST of the time
Blindspot monitoring works so well on some cars (not the Tesla) that you barely even have to look in most cases.
Automatic emergency braking on a Subaru works so well (with less than a 31mph differential) that it might give a texter a false sense of security in being able to text and drive.
Even drive pilot from MB probably works really well on straight roads to lull someone into a false sense of trusting it.

To me the main differential between Level 2 semiautonomous driving, and Level 3/4 is really about liability. Where with Level 2 the driver is always responsible. That the only way the car manufacture would be liable is if the Level 2 system directly caused the accident. Like if autopilot went suicidal and put the throttle on all the way into another car. With a level 3 car the manufacture of the car is liable for the portions in which the car is doing the driving.

 

[Drivin]

I'm curious to see if the insurance company will actually go ahead with the lawsuit, and on what grounds.


....Like if autopilot went suicidal and put the throttle on all the way into another car. .

Depends on what they find about the claim that the car accelerated after the initial accident.

Depending on the lawsuit and how it proceeds you don't need to be right you just need to convince a jury.

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

Question... Does the Autopilot shut off if the sensors detect that no one is sitting in the driver's seat? I know there was an issue with people turning around when backing up and the car putting itself into park at low speeds. I also know that Tesla was the subject of criticism when a certain unnamed YouTube poster put up video of himself getting into the back seat while on Autopilot and the seat sensor allowing it. If Tesla corrected that, could it be that when the driver in the Texas crash leaned over to get something out of the glove box, the seat sensors thought there was no one in the seat and shut down the Autopilot?

I'm not sure Tesla needed to implement this because it does disable it when the seat belt is unbuckled. I don't think Tesla should compromise the safety of a system when used correctly to dissuade someone using it abnormally. Plus the person using it abnormally will just find another way.

I know I shift around quite a bit on long drives with AP while stretching, and I've never had it turn off.

 

[danahull]

We don't really know that that is what happened. We know that this is what the driver thinks happened; but it is more likely that the driver accidentally disengaged AP while leaning to reach the glovebox. Why not wait to get the actual assessment from analysis of the car logs vs manufacturing a story based on a single individual's recollection? Oh wait, I know! Because it makes it really hard to use conjecture and speculation in order to sensationalize a headline and story when you have mundane facts about what really happened...

We don't know exactly what happened. I have the police report and spoke with the driver, but Tesla has not released a statement about this particular crash yet. I'm sure they have the logs and are looking into it.

 

[CarlK]

I agree, but honestly, does an insurance company ever refuse to cover a damage because of some type of negligence or carelessness? If that was the case, the damages of most accidents would probably fall on an individual.

The insurance company can not refuse payment but it will need to assign fault and to increase premium if they found the driver is at fault. That's why people always say it's the car, if there is not another driver involved, when they got into an accident.

 

[JMG]

Really? So if Chubb gives me a replacement policy on a 1978 Toyota and it's totaled, they can go after the tortfeasor for a new Toyota whereas an insurer who doesn't offer replacement value can only go after the tortfeasor for actual cash value? That's news to me. I thought we had established principles of common-law that govern our law and the issue of insurance has no relevance in determining the quantum of damages.

It's amazing what you learn on the internet!

(By the way, it's called "subrogation" -- and as an insured who has been paid out on a property damage claim you have no choice as to whether to sue or not -- after paying a claim an insurer can sue in your name and you have no right to select counsel or determine the course of the litigation but you do have a duty to cooperate. In a motor vehicle accident, there is property damage and sometimes bodily injury. The article never mentions if the driver was injured other than a bloody nose -- and that's very important since that's the only lawsuit for which he has the deciding vote as to whether to sue, assuming he was paid out on the property damage claim by his insurer.)

The stated amount coverage is only for your vehicle payable under the collision coverage. It has nothing to do with any other party that hits you. So if you are at-fault and total out your own vehicle, yes, you'll be paid the agreed amount. However, if another party hits you and totals out your vehicle, you are only entitled to the actual cash value of the vehicle.

As far as subrogation, I guess that is what it would be if Chubb went after Tesla. Typically, you hear of subrogration when someone else has caused you harm, and instead of handling 100% of the matter through the other party's insurance carrier, you turn it in to your own carrier....then your carrier will subrogate against the other carrier.

As far as property damage vs bodily injury, your own policy would not pay out bodily injury on yourself other than personal injury protection (usually no higher limits that $10k) or uninsured/underinsured motorist, which isn't the case here. BI is only payable to other parties that you have injured as a result of your negligence.

As far as the other person that questioned about whether the policy would pay if someone was negligent, that is the entire point of insurance. The only times a policy would not be responsible for covering a claim is if a policy exclusion were to apply. Common exclusions are intentional damage, fraud, etc.

 

[Odebek]

We don't really know that that is what happened. We know that this is what the driver thinks happened; but it is more likely that the driver accidentally disengaged AP while leaning to reach the glovebox. Why not wait to get the actual assessment from analysis of the car logs vs manufacturing a story based on a single individual's recollection? Oh wait, I know! Because it makes it really hard to use conjecture and speculation in order to sensationalize a headline and story when you have mundane facts about what really happened...

We don't know exactly what happened. I have the police report and spoke with the driver, but Tesla has not released a statement about this particular crash yet. I'm sure they have the logs and are looking into it.

It is basically a non-story till we have more information, yet you are still publishing it and creating link bait. You can also report that I am considering suing Tesla over the incident... (probably won't matter to your readers that there is not a plausible reason for me to sue, just leave that part out).

 

[Max*]

Joeski1: have you used AP for any reasonable length of time ? If not I would suggest be on the sidelines and listen to folks who have.

Ignore him, he also started commenting about SpC's before even using one. I guess it's the cool internet thing to do now.

 

[Canuck]

he stated amount coverage is only for your vehicle payable under the collision coverage. It has nothing to do with any other party that hits you. So if you are at-fault and total out your own vehicle, yes, you'll be paid the agreed amount. However, if another party hits you and totals out your vehicle, you are only entitled to the actual cash value of the vehicle.

I guess sarcasm doesn't come across well in print. I was responding to someone who said that Chubb was more likely to subrogate because they provided a replacement policy of insurance which was clearly wrong.

hearsay evidence? the operator stated that he wasn't paying attention, hardly hearsay.

I'd like to be sarcastic and say: "So when someone says you said something to him, and who is quoting what you told him in his article, it's hardly hearsay? Thanks for educating me on the hearsay rule! So anyone can go into court and say what someone told them and it's admitted into evidence as not being hearsay? I never knew that."

But I better not be sarcastic and just say: "hardly hearsay"? Wrong! It's not hardly hearsay, it's compete 100% hearsay.

 

[JMG]

I guess sarcasm doesn't come across well in print. I was responding to someone who said that Chubb was more likely to subrogate because they provided a replacement policy of insurance which was clearly wrong.

Ahh okay, yeah I didn't pick up on your sarcasm!

However, it might have a tiny bit to do with it. If they didn't write a stated amount policy, they would only be on the hook for the ACV of the Tesla. Which might be $70k vs $120k. I will admit though, that probably wasn't a big factor in their decision, should they decide to do so.

You must be an attorney, using words like tortfeasor.

 

[kort677]

But I better not be sarcastic and just say: "hardly hearsay"? Wrong! It's not hardly hearsay, it's compete 100% hearsay.

when the operator of the vehicle in question makes a statement to investigating authorities that he was not paying attention, that is not hearsay. if you are an attorney I'd petition the school that gave you a law degree for a refund.

 

[harry]

Ahh okay, yeah I didn't pick up on your sarcasm!

However, it might have a tiny bit to do with it. If they didn't write a stated amount policy, they would only be on the hook for the ACV of the Tesla. Which might be $70k vs $120k. I will admit though, that probably wasn't a big factor in their decision, should they decide to do so.

You must be an attorney, using words like tortfeasor.

Tortfeasor -- What a great name for a rock band!

 

[Canuck]

when the operator of the vehicle in question makes a statement to investigating authorities that he was not paying attention, that is not hearsay. if you are an attorney I'd petition the school that gave you a law degree for a refund.

The rule against hearsay does not depend on who you gave the statement to, unless it is sworn testimony or you are relying on an exception to the rule. In any event, I took another look at the article and I don't see that he gave any statement to "investigating authorities".

Where did you get that information from?

As to the refund for my law degree -- it was given to me in 1991 -- since that time I have made countless objections in court based on the hearsay rule, most of which have been upheld, unless opposing counsel said he was calling the person who made the statement, or there was another exception to the rule that applied.

Your credentials?

Ahh okay, yeah I didn't pick up on your sarcasm!

However, it might have a tiny bit to do with it. If they didn't write a stated amount policy, they would only be on the hook for the ACV of the Tesla. Which might be $70k vs $120k. I will admit though, that probably wasn't a big factor in their decision, should they decide to do so.

You must be an attorney, using words like tortfeasor.

Ha! In fact, actual cash value or replacement value is not the test (but I didn't want to pick on you for saying acv is correct, since you were technically correct in relation to a motor vehicle loss). The English House of Lords, and in particular Lord Denning, set out the test that is followed by all English common-law jurisdictions. That is, the tortfeasor must put the Plaintiff back in the position had the tort not happened -- but how do we determine what that result should be? In some cases, only replacement value will suffice (but those are rare and mainly relate to real property but not chattels.) If you're interested, this is the leading case from the BC Court of Appeal in my jurisdiction, which summaries the English common law and each common-law jurisdiction will have a similar case since this is where our precedents come from...

To begin with the notion that damages for the reinstatement of property destroyed by negligence should automatically be reduced, either by pre-loss depreciation or post-reinstatement betterment, was discarded as long ago as 1844 in The Gazelle (1844) 2 W. Rob. (Adm) 279, 166 E.R. 759. That was an action for negligence involving damage to a ship. Dr. Lushington rejected the argument that there must be an adjustment to the damages required for full reinstatement so as to account for the fact that the owners would thereby get "new for old". At p. 760 of the English Report he noted that:



... The right against the wrongdoer is for a restitutio in integrum, and this restitution he is bound to make without calling upon the party injured to assist him in any way whatsoever. If the settlement of the indemnification be attended with any difficulty (and in those cases difficulties must and will frequently occur), the party in fault must bear the inconvenience. He has no right to fix this inconvenience upon the injured party; and if that party derives incidentally a greater benefit than mere indemnification, it arises only from the impossibility of otherwise effecting such indemnification without exposing him to some loss or burden which the law will not place upon him.


The same approach was taken by the Court of Appeal 125 years later in the Harbutt's "Plasticine" Ltd. case. There the plaintiff's factory was completely destroyed by fire as a consequence of the defendant's negligence. The trial judge awarded as damages the full cost of reinstatement. On the issue of betterment the majority (Lord Denning, M.R. and Widgery, L.J.) held that where the injured party had no option but to replace the destroyed property, and had acted reasonably in doing so, the wrongdoer was not entitled to any deduction on account of the fact that the successful plaintiff got new for old. At p. 473 of the report, Lord Justice Widgery expressed his view in terms very similar to those of Dr. Lushington in The Gazelle:



... It was clear in the present case that it was reasonable for the plaintiffs to rebuild their factory, because there was no other way in which they could carry on their business and retain their labour force. The plaintiffs rebuilt their factory to a substantially different design, and if this had involved expenditure beyond the cost of replacing the old, the difference might not have been recoverable, but there is no suggestion of this here. Nor do I accept that the plaintiffs must give credit under the heading of "betterment" for the fact that their new factory is modern in design and materials. To do so would be the equivalent of forcing the plaintiffs to invest their money in the modernising of their plant which might be highly inconvenient for them. Accordingly I agree with the sum allowed by the trial judge as the cost of replacement.


In my view the same principles as those expressed by Dr. Lushington and Lord Justice Widgery apply equally when assessing damages for the negligent loss of or damages to a private dwelling house which is occupied by the owners as their permanent home.


The same conclusion was reached by the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Evans et al v. Balog [1976] 1 N.S.W.L.R. 36. There the plaintiffs' 75 year old home, which was situated on property zoned for high-rise development, had been badly damaged by the negligence of the defendants. On appeal it was argued by the defendants that because of the development potential of the plaintiffs' land, their house had no value. In upholding an award of damages for the full cost of reinstatement, Samuels, J.A. applied a passage from McGregor on Damages, 13th ed., p. 713:



The difficulty in deciding between diminution in value and cost of reinstatement arises from the fact that the plaintiff may want his property in the same state as before the commission of the tort but the amount required to effect this may be substantially greater than the amount by which the value of the property has been diminished. The test which appears to be the appropriate one is the reasonableness of the plaintiff's desire to reinstate the property; this will be judged in part by the advantages to him of reinstatement in relation to the extra cost to the defendant in having to pay damages for reinstatement rather than damages calculated by the diminution in value of the land.

 

[DrManhattan]

His statement would not be grounds for exemption under the hearsay rule since you can cross examine him. I haven't seen any evidence that he would refuse to testify, but I haven't seen how much money he's been offered.