Joshua Brown's family hires law firm - attorney claims more accident victims coming forward

[S4WRXTTCS]

Just this thread?

Haha, on the Ars article today I said the entire Tesla experience was rooted in speculation.

The media speculates on self driving based off the Tesla Autopilot even though it's NOT self driving. Heck I would argue that the media perpetuates the myth that the Tesla is self driving more than Tesla does.
We speculate on every possible thing that happens.
Almost every thread is speculation on one thing or another.

It does make sense since we're used to changes. We know things will rapidly change so we tend to be on our toes.

Back a long time ago before my days the 911 was the car of the day much like Tesla is today. Back then it was involved in a lot of fatality accidents because the drivers didn't know how to use it. Sure there were warning, and lots of people talked about it but it didn't keep people from misusing it and messing up.

Nothing ever really changes. It's just the same thing all over again with a different company, and different technology.

 

[msnow]

There are lot of things that make the navy seal look really bad.

There is his abysmal driving record. A ton of speeding tickets within the last 6 years.
The youtube video he posted of AP saving his butt actually documented his own bad driving where he had zero situational awareness.
An eyewitness claims he was going faster than 85mph in the 65mph zone.
The Harry Potter especially if the Harry Potter disk was in the dvd player.

I'm not sure how the lawyer can bring in other completely unrelated accidents into the mix. Some of the AP accidents have been because the user assumed it was on when it wasn't.

I don't see how suing Tesla is really the best course of action for the family. Plus he was a Tesla fan and it seems a bit odd for a family to sue something their son loved. Why betray their son unless he was without a doubt a victim of something? The family already expressed what seemed like clear knowledge of what it was.

To me the truck driver/company is the most likely target, but even with that I don't think they know the exact point where the truck driver started making the turn in relation to the Tesla. Plus trucks are so slow that they have to count on oncoming traffic to slow down for them or else they'd be waiting all day. What really matters is that the truck driver gave him ample room to do so. The truck driver can't be forced to wait for a completely distracted driver to go by.

It's sad to say but the "deep pockets" here are Tesla and they may settle this to avoid the bad press and possible bad result in court.

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

That eyewitness report is contradicted by the police report that he was going 65 mph: mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/07/business/us-safety-agency-investigates-another-tesla-crash-involving-autopilot.html

They also reported that nothing was found to be playing in the wrecked car. So the version of events reported by the truck driver, who is at fault and being charged, doesn't seem to be accurate at all.

Unfortunately, that's the version that was printed first and so now many people are faulting a dead man, just because he's not around to defend himself against the lies of the person who killed him.

Keep in mind what I listed was just things that would come up in a lawsuit. That with each one of them there was a lot of conflicting information. Like the truck driver had his own history of infractions, and he had reasons to lie.

Outside of the lawsuit framing I don't care about any of those things. What I care about is the AEB, and that it didn't activate. Not only that, but AEB systems in lot of cars wouldn't catch this. If we want to be serious about saving lives across the board then we need better AEB systems.

 

[jdw]

Great comment on Ars Technica:

isparavance wrote:
As a TSLA shareholder, albeit with a tiny amount of stock, I think the SEC investigation is much more harmful to shareholders than the crash.

 

[calisnow]

Need I remind you that you're the one that posted about how the accident could be the best thing for Tesla. A lot of people saw that in poor taste. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and simply stated how I felt. I didn't chastise you for it.

Fair enough - very good point. You got me there - sorry.

 

[msnow]

Great comment on Ars Technica:

isparavance wrote:
As a TSLA shareholder, albeit with a tiny amount of stock, I think the SEC investigation is much more harmful to shareholders than the crash.

He could be right but there would not be an SEC investigation if there wasn't a crash.

 

[calisnow]

@msnow @Eclectic and any other attorneys - from a game theory perspective of both Joshua Brown's attorneys, and Tesla - is there a question here of when the best time to settle is - with respect to waiting for or not waiting for the outcome of these NTSB/NHTSA investigations?

It would seem to me that each side has something to lose or potentially gain depending on the findings of the investigations. So, depending on how risk averse each side is, these investigations might prompt them to quickly settle before the investigations are over - right? Or no?

 

[msnow]

@msnow @Eclectic and any other attorneys - from a game theory perspective of both Joshua Brown's attorneys, and Tesla - is there a question here of when the best time to settle is - with respect to waiting for or not waiting for the outcome of these NTSB/NHTSA investigations?

It would seem to me that each side has something to lose or potentially gain depending on the findings of the investigations. So, depending on how risk averse each side is, these investigations might prompt them to quickly settle before the investigations are over - right? Or no?

I'm not an attorney (I just have a lot of experience at a senior level on risk, disclosures and materiality) but I can see both advantages and disadvantages to a settlement. The main disadvantage is it potentially sets a bad precedent for Tesla given their position on liability. The main advantage would be it limits the press exposure and saves legal costs. I also think that the findings from all of these investigations (SEC, NHTSA, NTSB) would be a factor in which way to go with this. In other words if Tesla is found not at fault or did nothing wrong by any of these agencies there is less incentive to settle.

 

[omarsultan]

From a corp comm perspective, settling creates challenges in that you are left constantly battling FUD and innuendo.

 

[calisnow]

From a corp comm perspective, settling creates challenges in that you are left constantly battling FUD and innuendo.

Settlement could include strong gag clause where Brown's family and attorneys can't even admit they settled - right?

 

[stopcrazypp]

Settlement could include strong gag clause where Brown's family and attorneys can't even admit they settled - right?

From the whole NDA debacle a while back, I doubt this will work very well.

 

[omarsultan]

I believe NDAs are par for the course in cases like this, so not sure that is as big an issue.

The problem with anything short of exoneration is that it creates a germination point for further FUD. If I were counter-marketing against Tesla for, say, a German marque, I would build a narrative about the quality and integrity of German engineering (VAG notwithstanding) vs the Silicon Valley newbies who played fast and lose with your family's safety and got busted. Add a snap tag line like "At [fill in a brand], safety is never a "beta". The official corp messaging would take the high ground and be nuance, but I would use proxies (news articles, bloggers, slanted survey results, regulatory and legislative actions, etc) to drive a more pointed message and to continue to amplify the FUD around Tesla technology.

Beyond that, I think many in the general public look at settling as a form of admitting guilt, like a plea bargain in a criminal case, so it effectively takes what should be a Tesla asset and turns it into a liability.

 

[msnow]

I believe NDAs are par for the course in cases like this, so not sure that is as big an issue.

The problem with anything short of exoneration is that it creates a germination point for further FUD. If I were counter-marketing against Tesla for, say, a German marque, I would build a narrative about the quality and integrity of German engineering (VAG notwithstanding) vs the Silicon Valley newbies who played fast and lose with your family's safety and got busted. Add a snap tag line like "At [fill in a brand], safety is never a "beta". The official corp messaging would take the high ground and be nuance, but I would use proxies (news articles, bloggers, slanted survey results, regulatory and legislative actions, etc) to drive a more pointed message and to continue to amplify the FUD around Tesla technology.

Beyond that, I think many in the general public look at settling as a form of admitting guilt, like a plea bargain in a criminal case, so it effectively takes what should be a Tesla asset and turns it into a liability.

That makes sense but tactically you're leaving them with just one high risk option, fight and win. I know I'm sounding repetitive but we really need to wait and see the results of the various investigations. I could envision a set of facts that would dictate a completely different legal strategy so we will see.

 

[AUSinator]

I just don't get this. How can Tesla be responsible? The driver is ultimately responsible for the safety of all passengers especially when an enormous truck pulls in front. It doesn't matter if autopilot did or didn't see it. The driver, had he been paying attention, should have taken immediate evasive action.

Not to mention he hit almost the end of the trailer that a truck stared to accelerate from 0 crossing a almost freaking freeway - he had 1 million years time to react to avoid the collision. It would of been enough to slow down only 5mph Less than 5 secs before the accident to avoid the crash he was oblesly not looking straight ahead but on his Mobile phone or something like that. He loved, believed soo much and didn't understand what semi auto pilot was that he had a false sence of security. Conclusion his punishment was harsh for not understanding.

 

[thegruf]

I will not comment in detail on the particular case as I am not in possession of all the facts, however

Have to say that in the UK, if the driver is proven to be driving in excess of the speed limit, they are automatically culpable as they are driving illegally. Anything that happens as a consequence is entirely the fault of the driver, even if another vehicle acts unwisely/recklessly. (typically of course excessive speed reduces time/opportunity to react to a situation)

Somehow I don't think any court case will focus on this aspect and I don't know how absolute the US law is in this respect.

Had this situation occurred if the vehicle was driving at or within the speed limit, who knows what might have happened, the driver could have had time to take avoidance, the AP (or AEBS) may indeed have detected the obstacle.

And if there is the potential to hobble Tesla's excellent work on autopilot, where does it stop? There just have to have been accidents with cruise control engaged, never mind ACC. Ban cruise control? Actually ban cars altogether due to accidents, which are almost invariably due to the weakest link - the driver - messing up.

 

[lklundin]

I just don't get this. How can Tesla be responsible? The driver is ultimately responsible for the safety of all passengers especially when an enormous truck pulls in front. It doesn't matter if autopilot did or didn't see it. The driver, had he been paying attention, should have taken immediate evasive action.

Past performance would suggest that not all litigation in the US has merit, surely because the justice system often enough fails to favor what is 'right'.

I have to wonder how things would have gone if the fatality had been in Norway, the country where 'DVD Jon' was acquitted in a trial that was brought due to complains from USA's DVD Copy Control Association and Motion Picture Association.

 

[McRat]

At least in our our state, 2 things happen in such cases:

Shotgun litigation, and deep pockets. Shotgun is naming every possible defendant, and deep pockets is finding even a small amount of blame attributable to a rich entity.

Everybody and their dog gets named in the suit. Some idiot named me in a suit about property damage at a party 200 miles away. That was weird.

But Porsche was named in a suit for not putting stability control in their track car. And Porsche cut a check.

The facts?

The crash was on a closed course circuit at a 'track day'. A waiver to acknowledge the risks had no effect, so the track facility paid out too.

The other driver in involved violated track etiquette and he paid out as well.

It was a case of bad driving by rich folk who did not have the skills to playing with supercars. And Porsche had a piece of their arse chewed off for not having SC, which didn't even freakin' matter. Nearly everybody turns off SC when tracking their cars because it destroys the brakes and actually makes the cars more dangerous IMO. By the time you whip that mule hard enough to make it keep up, it bucks you off. SC can only protect you so much.

But Porsche, the track (owned by Penske), and in this case the other track driver all had lots of money available, so Cha-Ching.

Unless the the truck driver worked for a large trucking company or there is a lot of insurance in place, they are going after Tesla. Whether Tesla is or is not to blame has nothing to do with it. It's just how things work today.

 

[mikeash]

Woman who was driving while praying with her eyes closed hits house

Better add prayer to the list of things that need a class and a waiver.

 

[rogbmw]

I don't think we have enough facts to conclude that. Based on what I've heard, it seems very likely that the Tesla driver was being
reckless. Think of the impact of this on his family and on the truck driver. Is recklessly causing that much harm in no way "bad"?
A distant second those concerns is the profoundly negative impact all of this is likely to have on the dream of autonomous EVs that
he is said to have cared so much about. I don't want to come across as unsympathetic to Joshua Brown, but I just don't buy the
argument that as long as you personally pay the ultimate price for your behavior it doesn't matter how much "collateral damage" it does.

Ummmm.......I don't really now where you are coming from on this. Living close to the accident scene, what happened was that a Semi truck made a quick illegal left hand turn directly in front of the Tesla driver. Many here do not think that autopilot, human intervention, or anything else would have altered the outcome. It is unfortunate that some seem to be jumping on the AP at fault bandwagon, but just ask yourself this....it a semi turned directly in front of you, and you were going say 55mph, and did not have any time to react (AP or no AP), what do you think would be the outcome.

As before, thoughts and prayers go out to the family.

 

[RDoc]

<snip>
To me the truck driver/company is the most likely target, but even with that I don't think they know the exact point where the truck driver started making the turn in relation to the Tesla. Plus trucks are so slow that they have to count on oncoming traffic to slow down for them or else they'd be waiting all day. What really matters is that the truck driver gave him ample room to do so. The truck driver can't be forced to wait for a completely distracted driver to go by.

It's my understanding that, at least in Massachusetts, that's not the case. A vehicle turning across traffic has to yield the right of way in all cases and wait for a safe opportunity to cross. There's no provision for requiring on coming traffic to slow or stop. That's what "right of way" means.