Model X Crash on US-101 (Mountain View, CA)

[Silicon Desert]

I'm a fighter for common sense. It's a rare commodity in all things Tesla.
Wait and see is exactly the attitude that is getting people killed here.
Highway Dept should place signage etc.
Tesla should know better than to NOT automatically disable AP after an AP accident.
Let's not pretend they don't have the smarts or skills to program this.
If you get hit in your Tesla, within minutes there's a person the phone with you asking if you're OK! If the car was on AP shortly before, why even wait? It should take a whole second and all next Teslas there would disengage AP while offering warnings of potentially tricky road situation. Not doing so, wait and see, is Chemical Ali like. Nothing to see here, carry on!

oh gee, yes I can see that you are a fighter of everything and love to argue. For heaven sake I am not here to argue with you. I actually don't disagree with most of your points. I think you are missing my point. I am not an expert in this area like a lot of people. We have to wait and see how things turn out. I do know that Tesla incorporates changes that mostly no one on the outside is aware, so maybe they are doing something to help prevent future issues (which I think they do), or maybe not. I'm not going to just assume they do nothing. Feel free to reply to the rest of the folks, but I put people on ignore that tend to argue, so I never see their future replies.

 

[Saghost]

I haven't seen this posted elsewhere yet, but if you are interested Mark Fong's firm (attorneys for the family) have a For Media section on their website that has a pdf of the complaint as well as audio from their media briefing today at 10am.

For Media - Minami Tamaki LLP

Well that's an interesting document. Suing CA, Tesla, and 100 unnamed people, only 60 of which are referred to in any way anywhere I can find.

Full of fun ideas, too, like he reasonably believed that Tesla had designed the car so the driver would be uninjured when the car is driven into a fixed object, and any car since 2015 with AEB except Tesla's would have stopped him from hitting the object - and that technology for perfect lane keeping existed before he bought the car and Tesla negligently didn't include it.

I'm thinking ambulance chaser. I just hope a sympathetic jury doesn't kill AP development by giving him something.

 

[Silicon Desert]

Well that's an interesting document. Suing CA, Tesla, and 100 unnamed people, only 60 of which are referred to in any way anywhere I can find.

That is just standard language in a claim. It doesn't mean there are 100 unnamed entities involved. Wife says folks are going to jump to conclusions here about a lot of things in that claim.

 

[Saghost]

That is just standard language in a claim. It doesn't mean there are 100 unnamed entities involved. Wife says folks are going to jump to conclusions here about a lot of things in that claim.

It's what we do.

 

[Silicon Desert]

Full of fun ideas, too, like he reasonably believed that Tesla had designed the car so the driver would be uninjured when the car is driven into a fixed object, and any car since 2015 with AEB except Tesla's would have stopped him from hitting the object - and that technology for perfect lane keeping existed before he bought the car, and Tesla negligently didn't include it.
I'm thinking ambulance chaser.

You bring up really good points and its just the kind of things that a defense attorney will dispute. No, it is not ambulance chasing. The wife looked at the claim and she brought up things I never thought about. This is not my area of expertise, but it is hers after 30 years of handling personal injury claims (mostly ones by car). Fingers will be pointing in all sorts of directions and probably drag out for weeks if goes to court. The plaintiffs obviously want to put full shared blame on Tesla and the state. Tesla probably claims blame is shared by the driver and the state. And the state will blame Tesla and the driver. The end result will likely be shared fault by all three.

We would love to hear testimony in this case. Hearing things like plaintiffs saying why did the Tesla allow the car to drive over the speed limit on AP?, but Tesla saying hey, the driver has control over setting the speed of AP and decided to go over the speed limit and maybe if he didn't, then this wouldn't be a wrongful death suit due to excessive speed. I'm not saying either one is correct. Just saying these are the kinds of things that attorneys argue about. Tesla MIGHT even say if the state had maintained the barrier after a previous crash then the driver would not have died, so fault of the state, or show that the state is mostly responsible because MANY accidents recently occurred at that location by drivers NOT in autopilot cars. Tesla might even say since the driver is a software engineer that he should have general knowledge there could be issues with the software especially since he has to acknowledge in the car that he is still responsible to control the car before using the feature. And then, they may look into the driver's record of driving with DMV or looking at possible 3rd party apps or Tesla logs that keep records of his speed to try and establish a pattern of poor or hazardous driving. Again, not saying he does that.... just that attorneys research and look at those things to claim a pattern of dangerous driving. And what about the comments he alleged to make to other people that the car didn't perform well at that location? Gee, this is a spaghetti of claims.

That's only about a third of the things she had me thinking about, and my head is spinning with all the complications. Now I am thinking it isn't clear where is the fault and I don't even have the benefit of any evidence. I don't think I would want to be a juror. The wife doesn't even want to speculate how this case will turn out. Just says that 90% of cases are settled out of court at the last possible minute with no one admitting fault. This one just might go to court for lots of reasons. The state and Tesla will probably each be paying out money and the driver having some percentage of fault. Just a guess. We wait and see. I need a stiff drink. I have a headache now

 

[AWDtsla]

I don't know whether this have been addressed, so forgive me if it was.

The fact that someone got AP to misbehave on the first at the very site of the lethal accident, in another Tesla, is that not a sign of gross negligence by Tesla? How hard would it be for them to disable AP on that section? It's not like they have Tesla Network live already and car that need to get through without a designated driver at the wheel.
The accident sadly happened and then seems like there was zero action taken to prevent recurrence at that very spot.
The psychology and reasoning behind business policies merely resulting in this citizen video to be possible, I consider extremely dire. Where are the testing and active version control? It's not exactly "set and forget", now is it?

You drive a car too fast in a particular curve, it understeers. You go to the car dealer and complain that it understeers at that corner, and ask them to fix it. Their answer is "don't do that". You continue doing it until you understeer into a concrete barrier and your death. Car dealer is now responsible for your stupidity?

We're always finding a way to "build a better idiot". In this case, looks like we succeeded.

 

[Tam]

...percentage of fault...

The language and ideas from this lawsuit seem to be similar to 2016 Son Ji-Chang lawsuit that claimed Tesla system is defective as he understood that such a high tech car should never allow such a crash through his garage wall into his living room.

However, as of 4/15/2019:

Korean Star's Defamation Suit Over Tesla Crash Tossed

It sounds like in the latest lawsuit victory above for Tesla, the driver didn't even get any consolation prizes such as a shared percentage of fault.

 

[Silicon Desert]

The language and ideas from this lawsuit seem to be similar to 2016 Son Ji-Chang lawsuit that claimed Tesla system is defective as he understood that such a high tech car should never allow such a crash through his garage wall into his living room.

However, as of 4/15/2019:

Korean Star's Defamation Suit Over Tesla Crash Tossed

It sounds like in the latest lawsuit victory above for Tesla, the driver didn't even get any consolation prizes such as a shared percentage of fault.

That's a good one. Love the photo. But you probably know that there will be shared fault in the highway crash. Not surprised that this case above resulted no shared fault. He clearly wanted to watch the football game on the family room TV from his Tesla

 

[SMAlset]

My head was spinning too after reading the pleadings and listening to the news conference audio with all the things that were said. People interested in the case should take the time to listen to the audio and the claims the attorneys made to the press.

As I mentioned before software engineers understand what beta software is. He had been driving the car since October/November when he got it and the accident wasn't until March. So really doubt there was any confusion on his part as to whether AP was infallible at that point and in fact he knew that from several instances at that point in the highway from before that there could be issues like this. He could have not used AP too. This wasn't billed as FSD and I'm sure he knew the difference, although his attorneys make it sound like it was FSD. In the news conference they then say something about well if he was suppose to keep his attention on the road still using AP, AP lulled him into distraction...which apparently would have been Tesla's fault according to them. Not sure who you blame for cars without AP and maybe use Cruise Control where the driver becomes tired/distracted/sleepy and suffers a crash.

In listening to the press conference I got the impression (not sure who was speaking at the time now--audio is 26 min. in length) that he was repeatedly trying to replicate the issue with the lane markings. His wife said he even took her there but the time she was with him there wasn't an issue. I can't help but think he was either trying to do another test run that morning and stupidly let it go beyond what a reasonable person driving their vehicle would do or was sleepy that morning and dozed off--5 seconds is a long time not to react when you see yourself headed for a wall and don't turn the wheel or try braking. One of the interesting facts that I think the preliminary accident report came out with was that he had set the car to minimum follow distance. That would reduce your reaction time at a fairly high rate of speed along that stretch of highway so I see that as a contributing factor and one that he controlled. And I think he was following the car in front of him who I think I read had switched lanes right before this happened. Without more info I'm of the opinion that the car operated as it was designed and the driver did not do his part.

There are a number of statements that were made in the complaint and in the conference that I don't believe are true. With the post above with the photo (posted by Tam) about crashing through a wall which was claimed to be due to unintended acceleration, this was kind of alluded to in the complaint too in one of the points. That has been debunked over and over and it's due to driver misapplication of the accelerator instead of the brake pedal.

While Tesla's SvC might have said send in a bug report if he was noticing anything unusual (he is a engineer and would think he is familiar with bug reports), no way do I believe for a minute Tesla ever asked owners to try to crash test their vehicles which is the impression I got from the audio.

By "naming" of all the John Doe-s in the Complaint, is that to sue all the engineers and service crew at Telsa and all the employees at Caltrans who were remotely connected to his car and the accident? I know a lot of the language and posturing is kind of standard in complaints like this but I'm not familiar with that approach.

 

[SMAlset]

This morning I had KCBS on in the car while driving and they had a report about the lawsuit being filed. Interesting the news story right after the lawsuit was about how drivers are confused by the crooked lane markers on Hwy 101 between San Jose and Mountain View. You got to listen to this one. With all the new "Express" Toll lane projects going in around the Bay, I can't imagine this whole driving scene is going to get better for drivers during construction. That 101/85 flyover project in Mt. View had been completed and that's what drivers were left with. Hopes that this lawsuit puts more public pressure on improving the design and maintenance of construction areas and regular roadways.

South Bay Drivers Confused By Crooked Lane Markers On Highway 101

 

[Silicon Desert]

was suppose to keep his attention on the road still using AP, AP lulled him into distraction...which apparently would have been Tesla's fault according to them.
By "naming" of all the John Doe-s in the Complaint, is that to sue all the engineers and service crew at Telsa and all the employees at Caltrans who were remotely connected to his car and the accident? I know a lot of the language and posturing is kind of standard in complaints like this but I'm not familiar with that approach.

Oh gee, now you tell me When I was a LOT younger, I think the wife lulled me into sex. Maybe I should have sued her for the new expense for 20 years of raising a new kid

Seriously though, you're right. The Does 1- 100 is just a general blanket statement along the lines of the plaintiff attorneys MAY find other fault to be named later on during the discovery process (a para phrased quote from the wife). It's in a LOT of law suits like this when not all the defendants are known in advance. Doesn't mean they are going to necessarily go after employees, consultants (like me) or other people that aren't deep pocket people anyway.

 

[CSFTN]

Maybe Tesla should word the disclaimer stronger with a more clear language such as "AP is currently in the experimental (a.ka. "Beta" stage). When using AP, the car WILL DO THINGS WHICH WILL RESULT IN AN ACCIDENT AND POSSIBLY DEATHS IF YOU DON'T TAKE OVER. It might do it once a week, it might do it once a year, or once a decade, but it will at some point kill you if you don't intervene, so you agree to be vigilant and have full situational awareness at all times when using this feature and be ready to take over at any time without any notice from the car. By using this feature you agree to assume all all liability for anything the car does whether AP is enabled or not, even if the AP action breaks traffic laws or does something completely irrational such as impale the car into a median, or drive into oncoming traffic, etc".

Have people read the more direct language, acknowledge they understand, then sign with a notary present - no more problems with lawsuits.

Even that's not good enough Not a lawyer but ... there's case law that even signing a form similar to that doesn't get the company out for free. 1) the company still has an obligation to make a defect-free product and 2) injured claimants can always claim they didn't understand, but felt pressured to sign, so signed.

 

[Kant.Ing]

Maybe DMV should start giving road tests to ADAS systems and issuing assistant driver's licenses, testing driver's drowsiness level and subconscious nag clearing action when ADAS is engaged, and/or running vision check on the cars' cameras like smog check during registration renewal.

 

[SMAlset]

Even that's not good enough Not a lawyer but ... there's case law that even signing a form similar to that doesn't get the company out for free. 1) the company still has an obligation to make a defect-free product and 2) injured claimants can always claim they didn't understand, but felt pressured to sign, so signed.

As to point 1. In the Florida semi-trailer accident, Autopilot was found to be functioning as intended, so not defective. Believe that will be the case here too. So many people using AP and drive and have been driving past that flyover section for sometime and haven't been in an accident there. Why? either their cars didn't veer off there due to the line markings or the drivers were paying attention and took over if it started to do so.

As to point 2. If you don't feel comfortable using, you can drive your car without it and drive like a regular car. Some people never order AP or EAP at all. Up to you if you want to use Beta software. And he wasn't forced to buy it or pay the several thousand of dollars for it either.

I don't mean to sound harsh pointing out the above and I'm sure everyone, including Elon, has sympathy for his family (the attorney made a point of saying something about this), but if he had been paying attention to the road and car while on EAP he most likely would have made it to work that day.

 

[FlatSix911]

You drive a car too fast in a particular curve, it understeers. You go to the car dealer and complain that it understeers at that corner, and ask them to fix it. Their answer is "don't do that". You continue doing it until you understeer into a concrete barrier and your death. Car dealer is now responsible for your stupidity?

We're always finding a way to "build a better idiot". In this case, looks like we succeeded.

I guess you have never driven a rear-engined Porsche... not all cars are designed with understeer

 

[CSFTN]

As to point 1. In the Florida semi-trailer accident, Autopilot was found to be functioning as intended, so not defective. Believe that will be the case here too. So many people using AP and drive and have been driving past that flyover section for sometime and haven't been in an accident there. Why? either their cars didn't veer off there due to the line markings or the drivers were paying attention and took over if it started to do so.

As to point 2. If you don't feel comfortable using, you can drive your car without it and drive like a regular car. Some people never order AP or EAP at all. Up to you if you want to use Beta software. And he wasn't forced to buy it or pay the several thousand of dollars for it either.

I don't mean to sound harsh pointing out the above and I'm sure everyone, including Elon, has sympathy for his family (the attorney made a point of saying something about this), but if he had been paying attention to the road and car while on EAP he most likely would have made it to work that day.

To be clear, I agree with all your points and come down squarely against the claimant here. I have been driving with AP since 2015/2016, and compulsively read this site, and everything I sign or agree to before I do so. As I should be, I am well informed and observant when I put my well-being in the hands of a machine. The point of my original post is that #1 and #2 are both contentions that are frequently made in court during liability cases, often successfully.

I hope unsuccessfully in this case.

 

[AWDtsla]

I guess you have never driven a rear-engined Porsche... not all cars are designed with understeer

Yeah, some are designed to kill you. "we've put the engine in the wrong place, and we're not going to admit we're wrong"

 

[whitex]

Even that's not good enough Not a lawyer but ... there's case law that even signing a form similar to that doesn't get the company out for free. 1) the company still has an obligation to make a defect-free product and 2) injured claimants can always claim they didn't understand, but felt pressured to sign, so signed.

What's so hard to understand? "If you use this feature, your car will try to kill you or others, you will not know where or when, but if you miss it you and/other people will be dead and it will be all your fault". You can break it down into simpler questions:

1. Do you understand that your car will randomly try to kill you or others?
2. Do you understand that it is your responsibility to stop the car from killing or injuring anyone?
3. Do you understand that if the car causes any damage or deaths, it will be your fault and only your fault?

If after that people claim they didn't know, it would be like someone going to court claiming they didn't understand the fact that if they load a gun, point it at someone's head and pull the trigger that it might kill or injure that person.

Or, are you saying that there needs to be a more rigorous certification/licensing process to allow people to drive with auto-pilot. Maybe they need to take a course and pass a test? Driver's license doesn't allow you to fly airplanes, maybe it shouldn't allow you to drive self driving products less than finished (non-beta) Level 4 either. Want to be a test pilot for Tesla, get trained on how to do it safely.

 

[whitex]

Oh gee, now you tell me When I was a LOT younger, I think the wife lulled me into sex. Maybe I should have sued her for the new expense for 20 years of raising a new kid

In this day and age, you could probably start a movement for that.

 

[SMAlset]

Even that's not good enough Not a lawyer but ... there's case law that even signing a form similar to that doesn't get the company out for free. 1) the company still has an obligation to make a defect-free product and 2) injured claimants can always claim they didn't understand, but felt pressured to sign, so signed.

As to point 1. In the Florida semi-trailer accident, Autopilot was found to be functioning as intended, so not defective. Believe that will be the case here too. So many people using AP and drive and have been driving past that flyover section for sometime and haven't been in an accident there. Why? either their cars didn't veer off there due to the line markings or the drivers were paying attention and took over if it started to do so.

As to point 2. If you don't feel comfortable using, you can drive your car without it and drive like a regular car. Some people never order AP or EAP at all. Up to you if you want to use Beta software. And he wasn't forced to buy it or pay the several thousand of dollars for it either.

I don't mean to sound harsh pointing out the above and I'm sure everyone, including Elon, has sympathy for his family (the attorney made a point of saying something about this), but if he had been paying attention to the road and car while on EAP he most likely would have made it to work that day.

To be clear, I agree with all your points and come down squarely against the claimant here. I have been driving with AP since 2015/2016, and compulsively read this site, and everything I sign or agree to before I do so. As I should be, I am well informed and observant when I put my well-being in the hands of a machine. The point of my original post is that #1 and #2 are both contentions that are frequently made in court during liability cases, often successfully.

I hope unsuccessfully in this case.

I understood where you were coming from with them . I had decided to quote your post as a reference point for readers who otherwise might not be sure where I was coming with my comments. I think this sort of thing happens a lot on here -- a post gets quoted as a reference point among all the other posts and then replied to -- and sometimes it gets misunderstood and people feel attacked or their posts were misquoted or misconstrued. Always nice when people respond courtesly as you did.

I'd still encourage people to listen to the audio of the news conference. I was playing it for someone who uses Autopilot pretty much all the time on the highway and he said there were what he considered so many lies or misconstrued "facts" they laid out it wasn't funny. But this is the kind of stuff Tesla has to contend with in the press.

Box