[UPDATED] 2 die in Tesla crash - NHTSA reports driver seat occupied

[gnuarm]

That's not how legal precedents work at all, they only apply to the given circumstances of a specific case. In that case it was a service tech of a service center disabling a safety feature (speed limiter) without authorization by the actual owner. Tesla was only held liable because they are the employer of the service tech due to Tesla's direct ownership of service centers, nothing to do with liability as the vehicle manufacturer. If this happened with other companies it would be the dealership liable, nothing to do with the manufacturer.

Your logic is so broad it's like saying Tesla is liable for all future lawsuits with completely different circumstances, simply because they lost one. There is no precedent set for any battery fire lawsuits nor for any claims of difficulty opening doors, as you were originally trying to claim.

And yet it remains a precedent that Tesla will be held responsible for their cars. We will see how it plays out in other cases.

 

[Yelobird]

And yet it remains a precedent that Tesla will be held responsible for their cars. We will see how it plays out in other cases.

Absolutely when an employee of the company overrides a safety that will happen. I suspect that wont happen again.

 

[MP3Mike]

Absolutely when an employee of the company overrides a safety that will happen. I suspect that wont happen again.

Especially since they added the speed limiter as an official feature controlled by the account owner. (Rather than a special one-off request like it was in that case.)

 

[stopcrazypp]

And yet it remains a precedent that Tesla will be held responsible for their cars. We will see how it plays out in other cases.

Again not a legal precedent and you fail to make a distinction between employer of a service technician vs liability as a manufacturer, but let's agree to disagree given it's clear we won't come to any agreement on this issue.

 

[hw13]

Will MB be held responsible? Ban cars??

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

Especially since they added the speed limiter as an official feature controlled by the account owner. (Rather than a special one-off request like it was in that case.)

This whole problem stemmed from Tesla adding this capability in the first place.

The clear advantage to adding it for everyone is it is made official, and there is a tool the user can use.

The clear disadvantage is you've actually added a lot more liability. If this feature doesn't work correctly then Tesla could be held responsible.

This is really the worst part of our liability laws. If you try to help, but screw up then suddenly you owe potentially millions.

 

[CyberGus]

This whole problem stemmed from Tesla adding this capability in the first place.

The clear advantage to adding it for everyone is it is made official, and there is a tool the user can use.

The clear disadvantage is you've actually added a lot more liability. If this feature doesn't work correctly then Tesla could be held responsible.

This is really the worst part of our liability laws. If you try to help, but screw up then suddenly you owe potentially millions.

That's why we have seatbelt laws. Otherwise, all crash accident victims would have cause-of-death as "strangulation by seatbelt"

 

[gnuarm]

This whole problem stemmed from Tesla adding this capability in the first place.

The clear advantage to adding it for everyone is it is made official, and there is a tool the user can use.

The clear disadvantage is you've actually added a lot more liability. If this feature doesn't work correctly then Tesla could be held responsible.

This is really the worst part of our liability laws. If you try to help, but screw up then suddenly you owe potentially millions.

The operative words there are "screw up". You don't have to be trying to help to "screw up". Any time you "screw up", you can be held liable. Is that not pretty fundamental?