Just Won a Small Claims Case Against Tesla – A Triumph for Autopark Failure Victims!

[JB47394]

Ok didn’t see that. If that’s the case why the drive off?

They drove up to the stop sign and turned around. Why? I have no idea.

 

[azred]

Not believing this until OP posts his tax return clearly breaking out the small claims award

Sarcasm noted. But until I did a little detective work we had no idea where this alleged case was even filed. Without that info at a minimum, the original post was not very useful. As for skepticism, the poster had no prior history here, posted twice, provided no useful details and promptly disappeared.

Looks like this is just click bait. I wish the YouTube video hadn’t been mentioned above. Please don’t pay him

 

[PianoAl]

They drove up to the stop sign and turned around. Why? I have no idea.

Hopefully to go back and leave a note on the car they damaged.

You should contact the media so that news of your win can spread.

OTOH, that might prompt Tesla to appeal, which I suspect they will anyway.

 

[CyberGus]

Sarcasm noted. But until I did a little detective work we had no idea where this alleged case was even filed. Without that info at a minimum, the original post was not very useful. As for skepticism, the poster had no prior history here, posted twice, provided no useful details and promptly disappeared.

Looks like this is just click bait. I wish the YouTube video hadn’t been mentioned above. Please don’t pay him

The YouTube video has 83 views, and the author has 7 subscribers. I'm sure he's raking in millions /s

 

[MP3Mike]

It seems the OP wasn't very well prepared so they only got $1000, which is likely way less than the damage cost to both vehicles:

I think it is cute that they asked to be reimbursed for what they paid to fix their Telsa, but they never actually got it fixed.

Also, I can't say I really agree with the judge here:

The manual makes it very clear that the driver is responsible for making sure it doesn't do something wrong:

It seems like the judge made their decision based solely on the name of the feature. But of course product/feature names really don't have anything to do with the actual product and how it works. For example, a "Happy Meal" doesn't make you happy, a "Diaper Genie" doesn't actually have a genie that grants wishes, a "Radio Flyer" doesn't fly or receive radio signals, etc.

 

[Dan D.]

It seems like the judge made their decision based solely on the name of the feature. But of course product/feature names really don't have anything to do with the actual product and how it works. For example, a "Happy Meal" doesn't make you happy, a "Diaper Genie" doesn't actually have a genie that grants wishes, a "Radio Flyer" doesn't fly or receive radio signals, etc.

The judge may have been using a "reasonableness" argument.

After all, if I name my L2 system Handz-free SnoozeCruise, I should expect criticism for including the disclaimer "You must be fully alert with hands on the wheel at all times". Wording does matter, even if it's a cute trademark. And especially for serious issues. A reasonable person may assume the name has meaning to the function of the product, despite the typical mountain of disclaimer text.

 

[jjrandorin]

As for skepticism, the poster had no prior history here, posted twice, provided no useful details and promptly disappeared.

The Original poster of this thread created an account, made their post at 9:25am on the day they created their account, hung around for a couple hours to make sure the thread "got going" and then logged off at 11:00 ish am on that same day and has not even logged into TMC since that same day.

This is the very definition of a clickbait type post, and most regular posters here know what that looks like, but they cant resist this topic, so the thread continues.

Note that for me, I consider this completely different than (for example) the thread by @gearchruncher , who is a regular member here, posted their information, and continued to answer questions, about their situation, actions they took, etc. This thread = clickbait, @gearchruncher s thread = interesting discussion, and helpful for people so inclined.

 

[cpa]

The judge may have been using a "reasonableness" argument.

After all, if I name my L2 system Handz-free SnoozeCruise, I should expect criticism for including the disclaimer "You must be fully alert with hands on the wheel at all times". Wording does matter, even if it's a cute trademark. And especially for serious issues. A reasonable person may assume the name has meaning to the function of the product, despite the typical mountain of disclaimer text.

I think you are correct. Reasonable people will conjure up that "auto" does not imply that a human being has to be the ever-vigilant watchful eye. It appears to me that marketing and engineering coined the term autopilot for the purposes of sales. Then the legal department papered the manual with disclaimers in the belief that these advisories would be sufficient to indemnify Tesla in case the car did something wrong.

Finally, from my understanding of these sorts of cases: Judges try to bend over backwards in small claims and traffic citation disputes. Good-faith argument by the lay person in presenting their side of the story carries more weight with the judge than the slick presentation by the respondent in small claims court or a smug traffic cop whose evidence may be slightly tainted but nonetheless OK.

It is worth it financially for Tesla to pony up a grand in cases like these when they have raked in likely millions in selling this device.

 

[JulienW]

The Original poster of this thread created an account, made their post at 9:25am on the day they created their account, hung around for a couple hours to make sure the thread "got going" and then logged off at 11:00 ish am on that same day and has not even logged into TMC since that same day.

This is the very definition of a clickbait type post, and most regular posters here know what that looks like, but they cant resist this topic, so the thread continues.....

Don't you have to own (or have on order) a Tesla to be a member of TMC? Did the OP buy a replacement Tesla to qualify as a member?

 

[jjrandorin]

Don't you have to own (or have on order) a Tesla to be a member of TMC?

No, there is no such qualification I have ever heard of to make an account here (and I made my own account here prior to buying my vehicle, way before I was a volunteer mod here).

These are not "Teslas official forums" or something, which is the only place such a requirement would likely be enforced.

 

[Dan D.]

The Original poster of this thread created an account, made their post at 9:25am on the day they created their account, hung around for a couple hours to make sure the thread "got going" and then logged off at 11:00 ish am on that same day and has not even logged into TMC since that same day.

This is the very definition of a clickbait type post, and most regular posters here know what that looks like, but they cant resist this topic, so the thread continues.

Note that for me, I consider this completely different than (for example) the thread by @gearchruncher , who is a regular member here, posted their information, and continued to answer questions, about their situation, actions they took, etc. This thread = clickbait, @gearchruncher s thread = interesting discussion, and helpful for people so inclined.

It's entirely possible this is a clickbait post by someone who is not the person in the car/lawsuit. I still find the discussion interesting as the case does actually exist and appears to be accurate to the information so far discovered. Insofar as that all seems to be true it doesn't bother me that much that the OP seems to be a one-poster. But I imagine the thread will die soon if OP never responds to any other questions.

 

[stopcrazypp]

It seems the OP wasn't very well prepared so they only got $1000, which is likely way less than the damage cost to both vehicles:

View attachment 954063

I think it is cute that they asked to be reimbursed for what they paid to fix their Telsa, but they never actually got it fixed.

Also, I can't say I really agree with the judge here:

View attachment 954064

The manual makes it very clear that the driver is responsible for making sure it doesn't do something wrong:

View attachment 954066
View attachment 954068

It seems like the judge made their decision based solely on the name of the feature. But of course product/feature names really don't have anything to do with the actual product and how it works. For example, a "Happy Meal" doesn't make you happy, a "Diaper Genie" doesn't actually have a genie that grants wishes, a "Radio Flyer" doesn't fly or receive radio signals, etc.

So it's a stupid naming argument, which was what I expected.

I think you are correct. Reasonable people will conjure up that "auto" does not imply that a human being has to be the ever-vigilant watchful eye. It appears to me that marketing and engineering coined the term autopilot for the purposes of sales. Then the legal department papered the manual with disclaimers in the belief that these advisories would be sufficient to indemnify Tesla in case the car did something wrong.

Finally, from my understanding of these sorts of cases: Judges try to bend over backwards in small claims and traffic citation disputes. Good-faith argument by the lay person in presenting their side of the story carries more weight with the judge than the slick presentation by the respondent in small claims court or a smug traffic cop whose evidence may be slightly tainted but nonetheless OK.

It is worth it financially for Tesla to pony up a grand in cases like these when they have raked in likely millions in selling this device.

Definitely not worth it for Tesla to fight it further given how little the amount was and the fact it was in small claims, where due to the factors you mention does not really establish precedent for larger cases. $1000 is two hours worth of lawyer time and it would definitely take more than two hours if the case was appealed to a higher court. As mentioned above, it's not uncommon for companies to allow small claims to even go uncontested.

 

[gearchruncher]

I think it is cute that they asked to be reimbursed for what they paid to fix their Telsa, but they never actually got it fixed.

Nothing in the law says you only incur damages after you pay to have it fixed.
Damages are about the reduction in value that occurs at the moment of the accident. Estimates or actual amounts paid are very efficient ways to identify that loss, but they are not the only way, nor did you only incur a loss after you paid a bill.

If this wasn't true, you'd have to also not allow anyone that had their car totaled to do anything but have insurance buy them another identical car.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Nothing in the law says you only incur damages after you pay to have it fixed.
Damages are about the reduction in value that occurs at the moment of the accident. Estimates or actual amounts paid are very efficient ways to identify that loss, but they are not the only way, nor did you only incur a loss after you paid a bill.

If this wasn't true, you'd have to also not allow anyone that had their car totaled to do anything but have insurance buy them another identical car.

Yeah, an estimate is a totally valid way to calculate damages even if you don't get it fixed.

I was paid out in an older car, and the other person's insurance just wrote me out a check, which I didn't use to fix it to the extent specified, given it was a really old car not worth fixing, so only got it back to drivable condition and didn't bother to fix any cosmetic damage.

The problem in this case is the plaintiff didn't prepare really well and the estimate they submitted was missing the page that specified cost.

 

[CyberGus]

The Original poster of this thread created an account, made their post at 9:25am on the day they created their account, hung around for a couple hours to make sure the thread "got going" and then logged off at 11:00 ish am on that same day and has not even logged into TMC since that same day.

This is the very definition of a clickbait type post, and most regular posters here know what that looks like, but they cant resist this topic, so the thread continues.

Note that for me, I consider this completely different than (for example) the thread by @gearchruncher , who is a regular member here, posted their information, and continued to answer questions, about their situation, actions they took, etc. This thread = clickbait, @gearchruncher s thread = interesting discussion, and helpful for people so inclined.

The term "clickbait" implies nefarious motives? Agreed that the OP wanted little from this forum other than to tell his story, but at least the story checks out.

 

[Supcom]

If I had "won" a lawsuit that poorly, I wouldn't have volunteered the details either.

 

[drtimhill]

It seems like the judge made their decision based solely on the name of the feature. But of course product/feature names really don't have anything to do with the actual product and how it works. For example, a "Happy Meal" doesn't make you happy, a "Diaper Genie" doesn't actually have a genie that grants wishes, a "Radio Flyer" doesn't fly or receive radio signals, etc.

+1 .. regardless of the dubiousness of the name, I dont see how this would stand up to an appeal. For example, "autopilot" in airplanes certainly does no such thing (for many years all to could basically do was fly in a straight line). And the Op claiming he "thought" AP would always work seems stupid to me .. RTFM.

 

[Shawn1]

I am writing this post in an exultant mood today because I've just emerged victorious from a small claims court battle against none other than Tesla!

Last year, I faced an unfortunate incident. My Tesla Model 3, while using the Autopark feature, got involved in a fender bender. I was under the impression that this state-of-the-art tech should flawlessly park my vehicle, but alas, it ended up causing damage that was not just frustrating, but also expensive.

Faced with the cost of repairs and the nagging thought that this was not my fault, I decided to approach Tesla, hoping that they would take responsibility for the incident. Unfortunately, I was met with nothing more than ignorance. They shied away from compensating me for the damage caused.

Being left with no other choice, I turned to the legal recourse available to me - small claims court. It was a daunting thought at first, going up against a multinational corporation, but I believed that my case was just.

Fast forward to today, I am glad to say that the court sided with me. The judge ruled in favor of my claim, concluding that the Autopark feature indeed failed to operate as it was supposed to and, therefore, Tesla was held liable for the damages caused.

My victory isn't just a personal one. It's a triumph for every Tesla owner who has faced similar issues but felt helpless against the giant corporation. It proves that consumers have rights and the power to stand up when wronged.

If you're dealing with something similar, I hope my story serves as an encouragement. Don't hesitate to take legal action if necessary, because as consumers, we deserve products and services that work as promised.

Hi,
I'm thinking of suing tesla for refund of my deposit. I got into situation where the tesla store employees said they would process my refund within 3-5 days. Its been 2 months now.
Could you please write step by step how you sued them in small claims court. Especially initially if you wrote a letter if yes do you have the address of their legal department?
Thanks

 

[dkrupenn]

Hi, I am original author of this thread. I have to apologies for the silence. For some reason I haven't been receiving updates from this thread and I haven't realized that there are many questions here. I will try to answer to all of them.

I am in California, but the process of dealing with Tesla would be in general the same with some modifications. As well, it will be a difference if you had an accident or it is a non-collision issue.

1. In any case I would contact Tesla's legal department first. The court will ask you for any evidence that you attempted to settle it with Tesla yourself first. I believe that it doesn't matter which state you are in, you should start from the legal department. I worked with:

Tesla Legal Department
3500 Deer Creek Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304

Brittney Johnson
Sr. Counsel, Product Liability
[email protected]

Case Manager, Litigation
Alyssa Saldana
[email protected]
Tesla Legal Department
901 Page Ave, Fremont, CA 94538

2. If you don’t get a satisfactory answer, it is time for the Small Court. However, it gets a little bit complicated. You need to find the Tesla "Agent" first to serve the court papers. Each state has it's own agent and finding them is difficult.

In California the agent authorized for service of process is:
Agent Name: C T CORPORATION SYSTEM
Agent Address: 330 N BRAND BLVD, SUITE 700, GLENDALE, CA, 91203

You well need the formal Tesla name and the HQ address:
Name: Tesla, Inc. (Brand name: TESLA MOTORS, INC.)
Street address: 1 Tesla Road Austin, TX 78725

If you are not in California, you could ask the Tesla legal department about the Agent in your state or search existing litigations against Tesla. To do that go to Public Access to Court Electronic Records | PACER: Federal Court Records. They give a some number of free searches every month. Search the cases with Tesla as a defendant in your state. You will need to find Declaration Of Service document. It will have the name and the address of the Agent in your state.

3. Now we have the Agent, it is time to file the Small Court Case. If you are in California you can start here: The small claims process | California Courts | Self Help Guide
When you filed you claim with the court you need to "serve" to the Agent on the previous step. This is how you do that: The small claims process | California Courts | Self Help Guide
The easiest way to serve the documents is to ask the court clerk. They will do it for a minimal fee.

4. Go to the court on the court date and present your case.
Couple things which I learned:
a) Bring the prof of car ownership to the court. The title is the best. If you don't have the car anymore, bring the copy of the title.
b) In my case I brought the estimate for the car repair, However, the judge wanted to award only amount which would already be spent, not what I expected the repairs to cost. As the result I only got $1K instead of asking ~$4K. I have no idea how the judge came with the $1K number. Keep it in mind.

I attached a number of documents related to the case. Hope they will be helpful. As well, this is will be helpful, if you have collision related claim:
1. Request the computer log for your car from Tesla: https://www.tesla.com/support/privacy
2. Get the video footage from the onboard cameras. On the older model you need to install a flash drive to record the video. The newer models come with the preinstalled flash drive in the gloves compartment.

This is my defense case in the court:

Statement of facts:
I intend to prove beyond any reasonable doubt three facts:

1. Proof of car ownership
2. The automotive was under Tesla warranty at the time of the crash and the Autopark feature, which is a part of Full Self Driving, was purchased by us directly from Tesla.
3. The plaintiff followed all instructions, requirements and guidelines to safely operate the automotive.
4. We have proof that the accident was a direct result of Tesla's software and hardware malfunction and the automotive was 100% under AutoPark control, at the time of the crash.
5. We will show that Tesla significantly exaggerated the capabilities of self-driving technology.
6. We will address the recent ruling for Case No. 20STCV18473 “Justine Hsu v. Tesla, Inc.” in Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, as unrelated to our case.
7. We will address Tesla's claim that the Auto Park feature is “Beta” and the driver has full responsibility of safely operating the automotive.

Exhibits:
Exhibit 1: Report of sale
Exhibit 2: Screenshot from the account form the Tesla website
Exhibit 3: Insurance policy declaration
Exhibit 4: Police report
Exhibit 5: Proof the car was still under Tesla warranty
Exhibit 6: Tesla Full Self Driving (Autopilot) package invoice
Exhibit 7: General car purchase agreement
Exhibit 8: Autopilot and Full Self-Driving Capability Article
Exhibit 8A: Highway Traffic Administration: reaction time
Exhibit 9: Tesla AutoPark owner’s manual requirements
Exhibit 10: Tesla computer log (condensed)
Exhibit 11: The testimony from Tesla lawyer’s Brittney D. Johnson
Exhibit 12: Tesla advertises the AutoPark feature
Exhibit 13: Briggs A. Matsko vs. Tesla
Exhibit 14: Bikan Octain and Daljit Octain vs Tesla
Exhibit 20: Communication log with Tesla
Exhibit 21: Letter to Tesla to settle the dispute
Exhibit 22: Picture of the car damage at the sensor (Video Exhibit D.)
Exhibit 23: Repair estimate
Exhibit 24: Wikipedia article about Beta software

1. Proof of car ownership
   1. The car title

1. Warranty, contacts and Beta software
   1. Although the car was purchased from a third party, the car was still under Tesla warranty (Exhibit 5) and Full Self Driving (Autopilot) package, which includes Autopark functionality, was purchased separately by us directly from Tesla (Exhibit 6).
   2. Just to note that Tesla sells a Full Self Driving (Autopilot) package from the mobile app and doesn’t offer any contract or disclaimer to review and acknowledge before, during or after the purchase.
   3. As well, the general car purchase agreement doesn’t mention anything about the Full Self Driving package (Exhibit 7). As well, the Tesla Autopilot and Full Self-Driving Capability Article (Exhibit 8) shows that only “Traffic Light and Stop Sign Control” is in Beta.

1. The plaintiff followed all instructions, requirements and guidelines to safely operate AutoPark function.
   1. The conditions to engage the Autopark function were fully satisfied before engaging and during the operation of AutoPark. Tesla AutoPark owner’s manual requirements (Exhibit 9, Video Exhibit A):
      1. Your driving speed must be below 21 km/h. If driving too fast, Autopark may not be able to accurately detect your desired parking space.
      2. There must be a vehicle in front of the space you want to park in.
      3. A distinct curb or edge must be visible. Autopark may not correctly identify the parking space if the curb is not distinct, such as grass or dirt.
   2. We will later watch the video from the onboard cameras to prove that all these conditions were observed.
   3. The plaintiff was lightly touching the steering wheel to take control of the vehicle if needed (Tesla computer log. Exhibit 10), even though the Tesla education video shows that the driver should completely remove the hands from the steering wheel during parking (Video Exhibit A).

1. The car was under AutoPark control all time from the moment the plaintiff engaged the AutoPark function till the crash:
   1. Computer log shows that (Full log: Exhibit B, Condensed log Exhibit 10):
      1. The auto part was engaged at 2021-05-20 0:15:22 UTS
      2. The crash happens at 2021-05-20 0:15:27 UTS, 5 seconds after the Autopark was engaged
      3. The plaintiff pressed the breaks at 2021-05-20 0:15:28 UTC, which is immediately after the crash
   2. The video from the onboard cameras shows that the crash happened 5 seconds after Autopark was engaged:

• Right repeater camera (Video Exhibit B)
• Front camera (Video Exhibit C)

1. The testimony from Tesla lawyer’s Brittney D. Johnson based on the Tesla analises of the computer log (Exhibit 11). Quote:

“Autopark was initiated while the vehicle was in Reverse and the steering wheel was turned slightly to the right. Autopark was in use for approximately six seconds before the brake pedal was manually pressed”.

1. The car log and the Tesla analysis both confirmed that the vehicle was under AutoPark control at the time of the crash.

1. Now that we established the plaintiff followed all recommendations and instructions form Tesla and the car was under Autopark control at the time of crash, let's take a look how Tesla exaggerated the capabilities of self-driving technology:
   1. Tesla advertises the AutoPark feature as (Exhibit 12).

“Park with ease in both parallel and perpendicular parking spaces with a single button tap on the Center Display. Model 3 will alert you to available parking spots by continuously monitoring the space around you.”

1. The fact that Tesla exaggerated the capabilities of self-driving technology is well documented in the class action suite Briggs A. Matsko vs. Tesla case number 3:22-cv-05240 (Exhibit 13).
2. Bikan Octain and Daljit Octain vs Tesla. Case 1:1998cv00923 (Exhibit 14). The plaintiff had a similar incident using Tesla AutoPark feature.
   1. On May 1, 2018 while using Tesla Summon and Autopark features, the Automobile crashed itself into the Plaintiffs' home.
      The Automotive was brought to Tesla’s customer service center for repairs, which were performed by a Tesla authorized body shop.
      On August 5, 2018 while using Tesla Summon and Autopark features, the Automobile again crashed itself into the Plaintiffs' home.
      Following the report of the second crash, Tesla performed a cursory inspection and refused to repair the Automotive.
      Tesla advised the Plaintiff's that Plaintiff should simply refrain from using the Automotive’ Autopar and Summons features

1. I know that there was a recent ruling for Case No. 20STCV18473 “Justine Hsu v. Tesla, Inc.” in Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. However, this case is not applicable, because the jury said that distracted driving was the cause of the crash and injuries. The Tesla owner's manual is clear that Autopilot should not be used on city streets, which is exactly what Hsu did.

1. Response to the Tesla claiming the AutoPark feature is “Beta”
   1. Implied Warranty of Merchantability: This is a legal principle that every product sold by a merchant should be reasonably fit for the general purpose for which such products are used. With regards to Tesla, their self-driving car, even with the self-parking feature marked as "beta", should still function as expected in a manner that is safe for users. If the car's software failed to park properly and crashed into another car, this could be seen as a violation of the implied warranty of merchantability.
   2. Product Liability: In many jurisdictions, manufacturers can be held liable for defective products that cause injury or damage. If it can be proven that Tesla's automated parking system is flawed or defective and was the proximate cause of the accident, then Tesla could be held liable for any damages resulting from the accident.
   3. Deceptive Trade Practices: If Tesla markets their cars as having a self-parking feature, customers will expect this feature to function correctly and safely. Even if Tesla warns users that the self-parking feature is in "beta", they could still be seen as misrepresenting the capabilities of their product if this feature does not work as expected.
   4. Reasonable Expectations of Consumers: When purchasing a product as complex and potentially dangerous as a self-driving car, the reasonable expectation is that the vehicle will perform safely under the majority of circumstances. If the self-parking feature does not meet this expectation, it could be argued that Tesla is at fault.
   5. Duty to Warn: If Tesla knew that their self-parking feature was potentially risky and did not adequately warn consumers, they could be held liable. While they did indicate the feature was in "beta", that may not be an adequate warning to the average consumer about potential dangers, especially if Tesla did not provide comprehensive information about what risks the "beta" status could include.
   6. Reliance on Automated Systems: We argue that Tesla's argument that the driver should be ready to take over at any moment is flawed. Humans are notoriously bad at re-engaging with tasks once their attention has been diverted, and expecting a driver to be able to take over at a moment's notice is not a reasonable expectation. Thus, placing the onus on the driver to avoid accidents could be seen as an unfair practice. In particular, Highway Traffic Administration article (Exhibit 8A) shows that the typical reaction time of a driver to perceive a threat is ¾ sec and then another ¾ sec to take an action.
   7. The Beta software principles. I have 30 years software engineering experience and I consider myself an expert in this area (Resume: Exhibit 24) According to the Wikipedia, quote: “Beta version software is often useful for demonstrations and previews within an organization and to prospective customers. Beta testers are people who actively report issues with beta software. They are usually customers or representatives of prospective customers of the organization that develops the software. Beta testers tend to volunteer their services free of charge but often receive versions of the product they test, discounts on the release version, or other incentives.” The same time Tesla sells Full Self Driving to all customers as a final product charging $15,000 for it.

Let me know if you have more questions. I will be watching this thread.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Hi,
I'm thinking of suing tesla for refund of my deposit. I got into situation where the tesla store employees said they would process my refund within 3-5 days. Its been 2 months now.
Could you please write step by step how you sued them in small claims court. Especially initially if you wrote a letter if yes do you have the address of their legal department?
Thanks

Given the OP went completely dark after posting and didn't answer any follow up questions, I doubt he will respond. The process also may be different for your local court vs his.

For things like refunds, have you tried reaching out to the store again or to customer service first? Tesla is notoriously slow with refunds.

If you insist on small claims, you can go to the website of your local court and call them about how to file a small claims. That will give you the most accurate process and what information may need to gather.