Tesla Engineers Confirm No Changes Made to Autopilot Despite Fatal Crashes: Trial Imminent
In a forthcoming trial regarding a fatal crash in 2019 that was allegedly linked to Tesla’s Autopilot system, multiple engineers from the company have testified that no changes were made to the driver-assistance feature to address its limitations that were identified in a previous fatal accident in 2016.
According to recent filings, the testimony of these engineers was presented in a case filed by the family of Jeremy Banner, a 50-year-old father of three who died in the 2019 crash. The trial is expected to go to a jury in October, marking the first time a fatal accident attributed to Autopilot will be brought to court.
The incident in 2016 involved Joshua Brown, a Florida resident, who collided into the side of a truck while using Autopilot. Jeremy Banner, also a resident of Florida, experienced a very similar fate.
During the 2021 testimony, Tesla engineer Chris Payne revealed that although the company was aware of the potential for cross traffic, Autopilot at the time was not designed to detect it. Engineer Nicklas Gustafsson also made comparable statements during a deposition in 2021.
Jeremy Banner’s widow recently amended her complaint to seek punitive damages. She argued that Tesla should have modified Autopilot to disable itself in dangerous situations following the 2016 death of Joshua Brown.
The revised complaint states, There is evidence in the record that the defendant Tesla engaged in intentional misconduct and/or gross negligence for selling a vehicle with an Autopilot system which Tesla knew to be defective and knew to have caused a prior fatal accident.
Trey Lytal, the lawyer representing the Banner family, informed Bloomberg that Tesla allowed the same defect to lead to a second death, three years after the first. Lytal emphasized that not only did the company know about this defect, but it also received warnings from US regulators advising against using the system on roads with cross traffic.
Tesla maintains that Autopilot is intended for use solely on highways and limited-access roads, although the system remains active in other environments. The company insists that drivers must remain alert and ready to take over from Autopilot at any moment, expressing that the drivers involved in accidents were not paying attention.
Critics argue that Tesla has created a false sense of security among drivers through public statements about the capabilities of Autopilot and through a product design that allows drivers’ attention to wander while the system controls the vehicle.
In a separate case, Tesla faced criticism in April for briefly suggesting that statements made by CEO Elon Musk about Autopilot could be deepfake videos. The judge, Evette Pennypacker, described this tactic as deeply troubling.
Earlier this year, Tesla successfully defended itself in its first jury trial related to a non-fatal Autopilot-linked accident. The case involved a woman who claimed that the feature caused her Tesla Model S to suddenly veer into the center median of a street in Los Angeles.
With the Banner case heading towards trial, it remains to be seen what the outcome will be and what impact it could have on the future of Tesla’s Autopilot system. The focus on this trial brings renewed attention to the safety of autonomous driving technology and the responsibility of car manufacturers in addressing potential limitations.
