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

[RogerHScott]

Why would you drive at 60MPH on Autopilot with your hands off the wheel on a winding canyon road with no shoulder?!?!

Isn't the answer to this always the same: because you can?

During a long drive over the weekend I was thinking about ways of making auto-steer safer: every time it has to remind you to put
your hands on the wheel it knocks 5mph off the speed it will operate at; after some "grace period" it will reset. Tesla says the driver
was reminded (I think, repeatedly) about hands off the wheel. That "reminder" needs to carry a big stick.

 

[Don85D]

What if the Tesla driver just fell asleep? It happens all of the time except in this case the vehicle didn't slowly drift off the road. It stayed in its lane as it was set to do.

The truck driver is at fault as in any left turn collision even if the Tesla driver fell asleep.

It's best to wait for the investigation results rather than construct scenarios as I have just done.

Blame is shareable, responsibility is not and the truck driver was responsible, in my opinion.

 

[Johan]

If Tesla get sued I think the most natural counter argument is: for what? The manual states:

[my bolding]

"Warning: Do not depend on Traffic- Aware Cruise Control to adequately and appropriately slow down Model S. Always watch the road in front of you and stay prepared to brake at all times. Traffic- Aware Cruise Control does not eliminate the need to apply the brakes as needed, even at slow speeds.

Warning: Traffic-Aware Cruise Control can not detect all objects and may not detect a stationary vehicle or other object
in the lane of travel. There may be situations in which Traffic-Aware Cruise Control does not detect a vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian. Depending on Traffic- Aware Cruise Control to avoid a collision can result in serious injury or death.

Warning: Traffic-Aware Cruise Control has limited deceleration ability and may be unable to apply enough braking to avoid a collision if a vehicle in front slows suddenly, or if a vehicle enters your driving lane in front of you. Never depend on Traffic-Aware Cruise Control to slow down the vehicle enough to prevent a collision. Always keep your eyes on the road when driving and be prepared to take corrective action as needed. Depending on Traffic-Aware Cruise Control to slow the vehicle down enough to prevent a collision can result in serious injury or death."

Now, on what basis do you sue Tesla for the system not doing what the system isn't designed to do, and not sold as capable of?

 

[NikeWings]

While not exact, I remembered a similar product liability debate intensity (& insanity) around this case and couldn't stop digging until I found it. Anyone else remember these? Alami vs Volkswagen and Manning vs Brown

NYT snapshot - Widow of Drunken Driver Can Sue Car Manufacturer, Court Says
Case Opinion Summary - 2 No. 15: Shauna Alami, &c. v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.

 

[SomeJoe7777]

What if the Tesla driver just fell asleep? It happens all of the time except in this case the vehicle didn't slowly drift off the road. It stayed in its lane as it was set to do.

You know, this may be a highly likely scenario. Investigation of this possibility will require retracing Joshua's last 24 hours, i.e. did he get enough sleep, how long had he been driving without a break, etc.

People fall asleep while driving on the highway all the time, usually resulting in an accident where they drive off the road. In this case, it may be exactly as you say: he would have driven off the road in any other vehicle, but the Tesla kept driving. With the "hold steering wheel" alerts, he should have been prompted with the audible beep within 3-3.5 minutes if he had let go of the steering wheel, but that is plenty of time for this accident to have occurred.

 

[thegruf]

Now, on what basis do you sue Tesla for the system not doing what the system isn't designed to do, and not sold as capable of?

To be clear I am absolutely with Tesla on this but, a counter agurment could be

...actually I wrote this and then deleted it as no way am I possibly giving any ammunition to parasitic lawyers after nothing more than profiteering from somebody else's desperately sad misfortune.

I'll therefore say that the word "reasonable" is used in any context, there is no defense, particularly if the driver is shown to have set the system to maintain the car at an illegal speed.

 

[Jagwease]

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.

There is always what is called the "last clear chance doctrine." What that means that if the car that would not normally be at fault had the last clear chance to avoid the accident, they must do so or we get back into comparative negligence. States have varying degrees of strictness on this. Washington state is brutal on LCC - it is almost get out of liability free if the person does not exercise the last clear chance. Other states, it is very minor and goes into the dog's breakfast that is comparative negligence.

My problem with this whole thread is that nobody knows the facts (and they won't be determined until there is Discovery - which will produce actual testimony and reports to be reviewed in the crucible of litigation) and few have any knowledge of the law.

 

[Canuck]

Looks like speculation that Tesla has already settled with Mr. Brown's family can be put to rest:

There was speculation that Tesla settled this case when the accident only occurred in May? That seems odd. I would think these types of cases usually involve a number of parties, insurers, and counsel and take years to settle, often on the eve of trial, if they do settle.

It seems reasonable to me that they would sue everyone they possibly could sue and I'm surprised, shocked really, that so many of you didn't expect this.

Agreed.

 

[omarsultan]

Now, on what basis do you sue Tesla for the system not doing what the system isn't designed to do, and not sold as capable of?

Your post is quite logical, which is why it has zero relevance to how these kinds of civil cases work in the US.

The plaintiff's attorney does not care about who is actually at fault, and given a choice, would rather not go to trial--as they are likely working on contingency, going to trial is an inefficient use of time. Instead the goal is to name anyone who is in a position to pay a claim as party to a lawsuit and them push for a settlement. If the guy/gal that painted the truck white has an E & O insurance policy, they should expect to get served. Plaintiff's attorneys count on (a) defendants wanting it to "go away" and (b) insurance companies wanting to limit the liability of a huge jury verdict.

 

[Sleepy3rd]

Looks like speculation that Tesla has already settled with Mr. Brown's family can be put to rest:

"The family of Joshua Brown, the Tesla enthusiast who was killed in a car crash last month, has hired a prominent personal injury law firm. Jack Landskroner, who has been hired by the family, says it hasn’t been determined whether Brown’s family may file a lawsuit based on the accident, but he says his firm is looking into “anything and everything” related to the fatal crash. Landskroner says he and other lawyers at his firm, Landskroner Grieco Merriman, have been contacted by other drivers who have been involved in accidents while using Tesla’s autopilot feature, the car manufacturer’s semi-autonomous mode that Brown was reportedly using at the time of the crash. Landskroner said that he and his firm were carefully investigating each incident."

"Landskroner Grieco Merriman, based in Cleveland, specializes in personal injury and product liability cases. Last October, the firm brought a class action lawsuit against Cleveland Public Power, alleging that the utility defrauded about 80,000 customers out of millions by charging a hidden monthly fee."

"Landskroner also said that his firm has sued both trucking companies and car manufacturers in a number of cases."


Tesla Autopilot Crash Victim’s Family Has Hired a Personal Injury Lawyer

 

[Drivin]

Now, on what basis do you sue Tesla for the system not doing what the system isn't designed to do, and not sold as capable of?

For the more recent case, not all questions may apply in this case?
Was the system designed to operate on that road in those conditions?
Was the system capable of determining the conditions under which it was operating
- The particular road?
- The frequency that the driver had hands on steering wheel?
If so, why was the driver able to enable the AP?

In other words, if the system was sold that it only should be operated on divided highways, and it knows that it is on a non-divided highway, the driver should not be able to enable AP. Otherwise it is a "wink, wink, nod, nod, - use only under these conditions our lawyers told us to write, but we will still enable it for a much bigger set of conditions"

Simple solutions here:
- AP only should be usable on approved roads.
- Driver should demonstrate alertness at all times (since it is what you mention that manual states, thanks!), by constant interaction with steering wheel (subtle involvement - no need for dramatic movement).

 

[W0QR]

Jury duty is a responsibility and a privilege that no one should try to get out of without good reason. Furthermore, smart people should be further motivated to serve out of the realization that it is better for everyone if smart people serve on juries.

If the unfortunate person involved in this incident was as big a fan as I've seen mentioned, his family should be careful not to tread on his dreams. No party was being bad here. Sometimes accidents happen. No one will gain from a lawsuit over this.

This was a crash not an accident. And the truck driver was clearly at fault. The Tesla didn't pull out in front of the truck. Truck driver is culpable. That's who they ought to be suing.

 

[Sleepy3rd]

Looks like speculation that Tesla has already settled with Mr. Brown's family can be put to rest:

"The family of Joshua Brown, the Tesla enthusiast who was killed in a car crash last month, has hired a prominent personal injury law firm. Jack Landskroner, who has been hired by the family, says it hasn’t been determined whether Brown’s family may file a lawsuit based on the accident, but he says his firm is looking into “anything and everything” related to the fatal crash. Landskroner says he and other lawyers at his firm, Landskroner Grieco Merriman, have been contacted by other drivers who have been involved in accidents while using Tesla’s autopilot feature, the car manufacturer’s semi-autonomous mode that Brown was reportedly using at the time of the crash. Landskroner said that he and his firm were carefully investigating each incident."

"Landskroner Grieco Merriman, based in Cleveland, specializes in personal injury and product liability cases. Last October, the firm brought a class action lawsuit against Cleveland Public Power, alleging that the utility defrauded about 80,000 customers out of millions by charging a hidden monthly fee."

"Landskroner also said that his firm has sued both trucking companies and car manufacturers in a number of cases."


Tesla Autopilot Crash Victim’s Family Has Hired a Personal Injury Lawyer

Please open attached NYT link, select Comments, select All, and scroll down to Sleepy3rd comment. Your consideration and any additional thoughts is appreciated. A Fatality Forces Tesla to Confront Its Limits - The New York Times

 

[calisnow]

There was speculation that Tesla settled this case when the accident only occurred in May?

Yep, there was. I read it here somewhere - logic seemed to be that Tesla would want to hush it up fast - probably was not speculation that an attorney such as yourself would have made, given that you understand how the legal system works and how long these things take.

 

[RogerHScott]

Before we all go setting up the gallows for the truck driver, consider this scenario: a truck wants to turn across the opposing lane;
it looks for traffic as far as the eye can see (and that's reasonably far -- no close visual obstructions) and sees none; it starts turning
across the lane, then stalls; a car comes along, paying no attention whatsoever; it approaches the stopped truck at full speed
and slams into it. Is the truck at fault here? It would be if you follow the reasoning of some of the above posts. It seems clear that
every such situation is ultimately a negotiation between two or more operators and both have a duty to be aware of their surroundings
and to make a reasonable effort to avoid an avoidable collision. No one can reasonably be expected to anticipate complete and total
lack of awareness by another operator.

 

[RubberToe]

You know, this may be a highly likely scenario. Investigation of this possibility will require retracing Joshua's last 24 hours, i.e. did he get enough sleep, how long had he been driving without a break, etc...

This kind of ties in with the other thread about disclosing material facts to the SEC prior to any corporate action. If I were Tesla, I would be very proactive and send the SEC the entire telemetry database for every single car they have ever sold, for the 90 day period prior to any corporate action. Additional, I would ask Google to forward to the SEC all internet search history for every Tesla driver during that period to help establish their state of mind during these periods, including a comprehensive psychoanalysis of all ~150,000 owners by a panel of a minimum of 3 qualified psychoanalysts each.

Google and the ISP's may also be able to contribute usage data enabling the SEC to obtain the "rest level" of all the drivers during the period in question. And while they are at it, include the same info for all the drivers relatives, or anyone interacting with the driver in a "material" way.

Using the cars GPS for location, any/all video from alarm systems or surveillance cameras within say a 5 mile radius of any active Tesla vehicle for the prior 90 days should also be sent to the SEC. This will help identify the individual idiosyncrasies of each driver should any of them be involved in an accident in the 90 days prior to any SEC filing.

All log data from the cars should be printed out on old style fan fold computer paper to exclude the possibility of the data being "materially" tampered with, and the video footage should be archived to high quality VHS tapes in the spirit of reduce, reuse and recycle.

A fleet of ~2000 specially modified Model X's (all but one seat removed) could run a continuous loop from Tesla Headquarters in Fremont to the SEC Headquarters to ensure the continuous delivery of all the "material", while making judicious use of the Superchargers along the route in the process to keep the environmental impact to an absolute minimum.

That's how I would handle it. That's just me. Oh, and lots of lawyers too.

RT

 

[llngoc]

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.

In this case here, I would risk to opinion-ate that the truck driver should be responsible as he is going to be charged already. But unfortunately he is not a face-less billion dollar company...

From my personal experience, this whole liability lawsuit industry is crazy. From my personal experience, a close family member was killed by a negligent driver and we actually ended up suing our own insurance company when our intention when we started out was to make him pay for his mistake just because we are fully insured and he is not. Otherwise, I would have to pay for my own lawyer...

 

[Zybd1201]

@golfingBuddha I get it, there are other variables. But an attentive driver would have time to react before the truck drove halfway into the roadway, so for the people who state that there is nothing that could have been done because the truck went poof, and behind a cloud of smoke and optical illusions just appeared in the middle of the roadway, not giving the operator enough time to swerve/hit the brakes/do anything are disillusion.

Feel free to dislike this post too, but showing optical illusions and saying "you're missing a bunch of variables" is not proving that it can actually happen.


I'm done arguing this point*.

*Until it comes back in a few pages again as a brand new idea.

Problem is, you haven't driven that road and seen that intersection. I have and I have seen the way truck drivers drive in the area. It just isn't so simple. The angle of the road, the width of the median, and the position of the sun play some pretty significant factors. I understand you want to be done though. I just wanted to point out that when a truck is in that median area and you are coming up the hill it is not entirely unreasonable to be confused as to what the truck is doing because you can see the side of the truck even if he/she isn't in your lane.

I don't know if he was inattentive or not at the time of the accident. You are the only one who seems sure. I'll reserve that speculation and give the poor man and his family some credit until proven otherwise.

 

[neuropilot]

Curious what people think of Alex Roy's article.

"Can Tesla Solve its Autopilot Problem?"

Can Tesla Solve its Autopilot Problem?

Apparently, there was sufficient time for an alert driver to stop before hitting the truck.

 

[stopcrazypp]

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I feel like we've been through this before, upthread, but here we go again.

I know the basic geometry of a truck. It doesn't instantly pop into the middle of the roadway, that takes time.
The average human reaction time is 250ms. At 80mph, he'd need to be ~30 feet away from the truck to hit the brakes and have the brake engagement register in the car. Tesla said the driver did NOT engage the brakes. That means that either the truck moved 30 feet in less than 250ms (see below) or the driver was not paying attention/incapacitated.


Below: Let's assume the truck and cab are 60 feet, and the car hit him about 1/2 way (based on the crime scene image, that's fairly valid), so the truck moved 30feet. There is no way a truck, from a rolling start, can move 30 feet at the same speed as a car traveling at 80mph.

I'm not sure if I made it clear, but in my scenario the car sees the truck already. The truck may have already pulled forward (comments from the trucker indicate he stopped for another car to pass by, but didn't for the Tesla). The driver then made the decision to try to pass in front of the truck, so wouldn't have been reacting in a way that would be trying to apply the brakes as a first reaction.

Also, the scene depiction drawing clearly says the it is not to scale, so I would not rely on that to say where the car actually hit the truck. For one thing, the size of the median is clearly not correct, if you compare to satellite photos.

Like golfingbuddha says, the way the intersection is, you can see the side of the truck already well before it is crossing the intersection. Thus it may not be immediately clear the intention of the truck just from its position (another comment a while back said it could be possible the driver saw the truck pause for the car before it and then thought the truck would do the same for him).