Just got a popup from Reuters citing Tesla being sued for the teens who lost control at 116 MPH in Florida and crashed into the wall.
Firm posted action here.
Firm posted action here.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla sued for teenager crash (out of main)
- Thread starter Joe F
- Start date
Pezpunk
Active Member
nobody's going to blame Tesla for that.
Damn every news outlet is picking up this story. Back to 300
Are people more lawsuit happy with Teslas or does nobody bother to report frivolous lawsuits from other crashes? It's not even like they can claim autopilot failure etc.
Tesla should counter sue after they win.
The limiter bit, if true, sounds like a reasonable grievance. The battery igniting after colliding into a literal brick wall at 116MPH does not.
Not sure suing the parents of a deceased teenager is a good idea.
It sounds like the crux of the lawsuit is going to be how/why the speed limiter was removed by the SC. Was it accidentally removed by a firmware upgrade, or did the teen con a tech at the SC into removing it? It sounds a little fishy that the car was taken to a different SC than the father normally used.
anthonyj
Stonks
Lol that case will get thrown out. Tesla didn’t tell the kid to go 116mph
Under the legal system, it is questionable. IANAL, YMMV
Breaking the chain - Wikipedia
The driver chose to speed, that would seem to break the chain of negligence and remove Tesla from responsibility.
Negligence - Wikipedia
The removal of the limiter was not the cause of the accident (nor would allowing a car to go its normal max speed be foreseen as causing an accident), thus clearing Tesla.
Depending on how the limiter was implemented, the SC may not have known it existed, or no longer did after the service work. If it was a modified valet mode, the father might have needed to re-enable it.
(this is going to get a thread, I feel)
I've taken my car to Sunnyvale, Santa Clara and Fremont service centers at various times. I don't think that part is particularly fishy.
Pezpunk
Active Member
i suppose it comes down to how and why the limiter was removed, but regardless, even if it was 100% Tesla's mistake removing it -- meaning the kid didn't trick the tech into removing it -- the bottom line is it'd still be utterly ludicrous to hold a car company responsible for someone crashing their car at 116mph and dying.
Right, what I meant is that it can be reasonably argued. Particularly with him being a minor, I could see some gray area. But expecting any car traveling at that speed into, sorry, a *concrete* wall to remain safe is absurd.
EDIT: Wait, just saw he was 18 at the time. Being an adult, that changes things quite a bit. Can't see this going anywhere.
Last edited:
Pezpunk
Active Member
furthermore -- it's interesting that this suit was filed on the exact same day Tesla released their Q4 Vehicle Safety Report ( Tesla Q4 2018 Vehicle Safety Report: 1 accident per 2.91M miles with Autopilot engaged ), intended to highlight how safe their cars are. I wonder if its release was timed knowing this lawsuit was impending.
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
Make that: "An 18 yo adult speeding 116mph in a 30 mph zone, hitting three obstacles (two walls and a lamp post) and only not dying immediately at impact due to Tesla's outstanding crash safety."
In most ICE cars Riley would probably have died at impact - after which the gasoline fire would probably have engulfed the car. The fatality rate in 100+ mph frontal crashes is near 100%.
Riley had a history of reckless driving prior the crash:
"Riley was cited for speeding in March; it was his first offense. On a Saturday night, a Broward Sheriffs’ deputy used radar to track a gray 2014 Tesla sedan traveling at 112 mph in a 50 mph zone near Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport, according to the citation."
I cannot see a jury showing much sympathy towards the novel legal argument of shifting blame on Tesla for the consequences of reckless driving at nearly 4x the posted speed limit.
Last edited:
18 y.o. is not a minor. It's an adult without drinking rights.
Is it said somewhere who is suing is it parents or some short seller?
Your honor, the plaintiffs assert that the car would have been perfectly safe hitting a concrete wall at 85 MPH, and thus they let their child drive it. However, at 116 MPH it turns into an unsafe flying death trap and remains that way at 86 MPH.
From an early news report, the car was going 86 MPH at time of impact.
Turn was labeled 25 MPH Are Electric Cars Too Powerful? Tesla Model S Involved In Deadly Crash Was Traveling 116 MPH | CleanTechnica
Car was originally purchased by their uncle due to its safety rating.
Tesla in fatal crash was altered to limit its top speed, victim’s aunt says
Yep, saw that and edited my post. I had it in my mind he was a minor, but since he's not, that changes things completely.
EDGAR MONSERRATT MARTINEZ, v. TESLA, INC
Edgar is the passenger in the car who died. So Law firm is suing on behalf of dead passenger, just for publicity?
Do I understand correctly?
If he was 18 and the car was titled in his name, Tesla has no reason to refuse to remove the limiter. Anyone know who the car was titled to?
Similar threads
