They drove up to the stop sign and turned around. Why? I have no idea.Ok didn’t see that. If that’s the case why the drive off?
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
They drove up to the stop sign and turned around. Why? I have no idea.Ok didn’t see that. If that’s the case why the drive off?
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.Not believing this until OP posts his tax return clearly breaking out the small claims award
Hopefully to go back and leave a note on the car they damaged.They drove up to the stop sign and turned around. Why? I have no idea.
OTOH, that might prompt Tesla to appeal, which I suspect they will anyway.You should contact the media so that news of your win can spread.
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 judge may have been using a "reasonableness" argument.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.
As for skepticism, the poster had no prior history here, posted twice, provided no useful details and promptly disappeared.
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.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.
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?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.....
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).Don't you have to own (or have on order) a Tesla to be a member of TMC?
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.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.
So it's a stupid naming argument, which was what I expected.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.
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.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.
Nothing in the law says you only incur damages after you pay to have it fixed.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.
Yeah, an estimate is a totally valid way to calculate damages even if you don't get 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.
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.
+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.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.
Hi,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.
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.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