Personal views of Musk loom large in jury selection for Tesla trial

Article content

MIAMI — Inside a federal courtroom here Monday, dozens of prospective jurors for a federal civil trial against Tesla were asked to carefully consider their personal views of the man behind the driver-assistance technology blamed for causing a fatal 2019 crash: Elon Musk.

Article content

“It is hard to hear the name Elon Musk and not have a view, positive or negative,” Tesla’s attorney, Tom Branigan, said in the courtroom. “Do any of you have such strong feelings?”

Article content

Article content

Several potential jurors raised their hands. One man said he took issue with Musk’s controversial role in the U.S. DOGE Service, where he oversaw the dismantling of USAID. Another said it was hard to ignore the constant stream of news around Musk and his relationship with President Donald Trump. A third said she felt Tesla and Musk were “ethically compromised.”

“Could you set those feelings aside?” Branigan asked.

“It would be difficult,” said a woman, who was later dismissed.

The attorneys for both sides sifted through the candidates for hours before landing on a group of nine jurors and one alternate to render a verdict on a case that could have sweeping implications for Musk’s electric vehicle company.

Article content

At issue is whether Musk’s driver-assistance technology was to blame for the 2019 crash in Key Largo, Fla., that killed Naibel Benavides Leon and gravely injured her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo. Benavides Leon’s family and Angulo filed a joint federal lawsuit against Tesla in 2024, alleging its Autopilot system malfunctioned because it failed to warn the Tesla’s driver, George McGee, that the road was ending as he looked down to retrieve his dropped cellphone.

Tesla’s Autopilot system can steer, brake and alert drivers of upcoming obstacles but is designed to be supervised by a driver at all times. Plaintiffs’ attorney Brett Schreiber spent much of his opening statements Monday arguing that Musk made misleading public statements over the years that convinced his customers that his technology was more capable than it really was. He also argued that Tesla acted recklessly by allowing Autopilot to function on roads it is not designed for.

Article content

Article content

Tesla’s attorneys denied responsibility for the crash, saying the feature’s terms and conditions state that the driver is ultimately in control when Autopilot is activated. Defence attorney Joel Smith said the case was not about Musk or Autopilot but instead about an “aggressive” and “distracted” driver who averted his eyes from the road and then plowed into the couple.

Though Musk was not in the courtroom Monday, his presence loomed large, underscoring how the world’s richest man has permeated the minds of everyday citizens. The trial comes at a critical time for Tesla, the sales and profits of which sharply slumped after Musk launched his controversial foray into national politics. The billionaire’s role in the Trump administration sparked global protests against Tesla and pressure on its board to pull Musk’s attention back to his struggling company.

Article content

Tesla’s fully automated driving technology is at the center of Musk’s plan for the automaker’s revival. The company last month started testing its more advanced fully self-driving technology with fare-paying passengers in Austin, with plans to expand over the next couple of months despite scant federal regulations and safety guardrails.

At issue in the trial is whether Tesla is liable when its Autopilot technology is involved in a crash. Defeat or victory in the courtroom would have significant implications for the carmaker, which is facing several other lawsuits around the country over its driver-assistance technology.

A favorable ruling for Tesla would be a major win for the company, which for years has fought to absolve itself from responsibility when one of its cars on Autopilot is involved in a crash. The company has won at least two Autopilot-related jury trials in recent years and settled at least one other before trial.

Article content

A guilty verdict could subject Tesla to more liability not only from its existing vehicles but potentially also from its fully automated Robotaxis being rolled out on public roads. Federal Judge Beth Bloom, who is presiding over the case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, ruled last month that the jury may consider punitive damages against Tesla, potentially subjecting the company to a steep financial penalty.

Tesla has defeated similar cases. In 2023, a state jury in Los Angeles found the driver was to blame in a crash involving the Autopilot technology. Later that year in Riverside County, California, a state jury found Tesla not liable in a fatal crash where a man allegedly using Autopilot suddenly experienced his car veer off the highway, crash into a palm tree and burst into flames.

Article content

In 2024, Tesla settled another fatal Autopilot-related case days before it was set to go to trial in California.

The case over the 2019 Key Largo crash is the first time a wrongful death case against Tesla brought by a third party will be heard in front of a federal jury, according to the plaintiffs’ lawyers. Previous cases have been brought by Tesla drivers or their families; this case involves bystanders swept into tragedy.

The 2019 crash unfolded on a clear night in April, when Angulo and Benavides Leon pulled over on the side of the road after a long day of fishing. The couple were trying to look at the stars, Angulo said in a previous interview with The Washington Post.

McGee — unaware of a yellow blinking light, stop sign and five yellow signs marking the end of the road — plowed through the three-way intersection and into the couple.

Article content

“Oh my God, I wasn’t looking,” the driver, McGee, said in a 911 call immediately after the crash, according to court documents. “I don’t know what happened. I ended up missing the turn. I was looking down.”

“I dropped my phone,” he told the police. “Oh my God.”

According to legal documents, user manuals and statements to regulators, Tesla’s Autopilot feature is intended for use on controlled-access highways – roads with dividers, clear lane markings and no cross traffic.

Tesla’s decision not to limit the technology to operate only on roads that meet the criteria in its own user manuals was the subject of a 2023 recall by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The agency also said Tesla had done too little to ensure that drivers pay attention to the road while its Autopilot system is activated.

Article content

Tesla disputed the agency’s criticisms at the time but said it solved the issue with software updates that added alerts to remind drivers to pay attention while using the automated driving system.

As both sides laid out their cases Monday, Angulo sat in the audience on a cushion to ease the pain he still feels after sitting for long periods – a lingering side effect of the injuries he sustained in the crash. He broke down several times as attorneys played dash-cam footage of the crash and showed the courtroom photos of the young couple.

The plaintiffs face a high legal bar to prevail, in part because of the way Tesla vehicles repeatedly warn drivers about the limitations and McGee’s admissions of his responsibility while using the feature. The parties also disagree on which specific driver-assistance features were activated at the time of the crash, according to court filings.

Ed Walters, who teaches legal issues related to autonomous vehicles at Georgetown University Law Center, said the primary lesson of the crash that killed Benavides Leon – and other cases pending against the company – should be that assisted driving features are “not robot drivers.”

“They are not designed to replace 100% of the driving tasks, and people shouldn’t use them that way,” he said. “And if people continue to use them as if they replace the driver completely, people are going to die.”

RECOMMENDED VIDEO

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

Play Video

Article content