Tesla asked a federal judge on Friday to overturn or order a new trial for a jury verdict that assigned $243 million in damages tied to a 2019 crash involving the company’s Autopilot driver‑assist system.
In its motion, Tesla contends the verdict contradicts Florida tort law and the Due Process Clause, and argues the outcome improperly penalizes the company for conduct the automaker says was primarily the driver’s responsibility.
The jury in the case allocated one‑third of the blame to Tesla and two‑thirds to driver George McGee. The crash occurred at night in Florida when McGee, operating a Tesla Model S with Autopilot active, ran a stop sign and struck a perpendicularly parked SUV, killing 20‑year‑old Naibel Benavides Leon and severely injuring her companion, Dillon Angulo.
Prosecutors and plaintiffs’ attorneys say McGee admitted to reaching for his phone before the collision. Tesla has emphasized that its Autopilot package — like its “Full Self‑Driving (Supervised)” software — requires drivers to keep their hands on the wheel and remain attentive.
The victims pursued claims against both McGee and Tesla; McGee reached a private settlement with the families. According to court filings, the plaintiffs had proposed a $60 million settlement with Tesla months before the jury’s decision, an offer the company declined.
Tesla’s filing frames the case as one of driver misconduct rather than product defect. Company lawyers wrote that product liability should address products that perform in ways that materially deviate from reasonable consumer expectations or are inherently unsafe — which, they argue, does not describe this incident. They warned that allowing the judgment to stand could deter technological advances and push manufacturers away from safety enhancements for fear of large penalties when drivers misuse systems.
The motion also criticizes the plaintiffs’ trial strategy, alleging the other side introduced prejudicial evidence — including testimony and materials unrelated to the 2019 Model S — that improperly influenced jurors’ views of Tesla and its leadership.
Lead counsel for the plaintiffs, Brett Schreiber, disputed Tesla’s characterization. He said the motion underscores what he called the company’s disregard for the human consequences of flawed technology, and argued the jury reached the correct conclusion that both the driver’s conduct and Autopilot’s limitations contributed to the wreck. Schreiber said he expects the court to uphold the verdict and that the ruling should be viewed as a rebuke of Tesla’s development and deployment of the system, not as an indictment of automation broadly.
The judge has not set a timetable for resolving Tesla’s post‑trial request. Possible outcomes include granting a new trial, reducing the award, or allowing the jury’s verdict to stand; any party could pursue further appeals following the court’s ruling.
