A federal judge has upheld a $243 million jury verdict against Tesla in a high-profile wrongful death lawsuit arising from a fatal crash involving the company’s Autopilot driver-assistance system. The decision marks a significant development in ongoing litigation over autonomous vehicle technology and
corporate liability for advanced driver-assistance systems.
U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom of the Southern District of Florida denied Tesla’s post-trial motions seeking to overturn or reduce the jury’s award. The ruling leaves intact the August 2025 verdict that found Tesla partially responsible for a 2019 crash in Key Largo, Florida, which killed 22-year-old Naibel Benavides Leon and seriously injured her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo.
Background of the Tesla Autopilot Crash
The fatal incident occurred when a Tesla Model S operating with Autopilot engaged collided with a parked Chevrolet Tahoe on the side of the road. According to court testimony, the Tesla driver, George McGee, admitted he was distracted and searching for his phone at the time of the crash.
Plaintiffs argued that Tesla’s Autopilot system failed to properly detect the stopped vehicle and did not adequately warn the driver or disengage to prevent the collision. They also contended that Tesla’s marketing of Autopilot created an unreasonable belief that the system could safely handle driving tasks without constant driver attention.
Tesla countered that Autopilot is a driver-assistance feature not a fully autonomous system and requires active supervision at all times. The company maintained that the crash was caused solely by driver negligence and that the vehicle was not defectively designed.
Jury Verdict and Damages Award
After hearing weeks of testimony, a federal jury determined that Tesla bore 33% of the responsibility for the crash, with the remaining fault attributed to the driver. The jury awarded approximately:
- $19.5 million to the estate of Naibel Benavides Leon
- $23.1 million to Dillon Angulo for personal injury damages
- $200 million in punitive damages
The punitive damages component significantly increased the total judgment to $243 million and reflected the jury’s finding that Tesla’s conduct warranted punishment and deterrence.
Punitive damages are often awarded in product liability cases when jurors conclude that a company acted with reckless disregard for safety. In this case, plaintiffs’ attorneys argued that Tesla continued to promote Autopilot despite known limitations and prior crash investigations involving the system.
Judge Rejects Tesla’s Post-Trial Motions
Following the verdict, Tesla sought to have the judgment set aside, reduced, or retried. The company argued that the evidence did not support the jury’s findings and that the punitive damages award was excessive.
Judge Bloom rejected those arguments, concluding that the jury had sufficient evidence to reach its decision and that the damages were legally justified. The ruling preserves the full award at the trial court level and strengthens the verdict’s legal standing.
Tesla is expected to appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, continuing what could become a closely watched appellate battle over autonomous vehicle liability.
Implications for Autonomous Vehicle Litigation
The upheld verdict is widely viewed as a pivotal moment in Tesla Autopilot crash litigation and broader autonomous vehicle product liability cases. While Tesla has faced numerous lawsuits over crashes involving Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (FSD) technology, this case represents one of the largest jury awards tied directly to a fatal accident.
Legal analysts note that the ruling could influence how courts evaluate claims involving advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS). Plaintiffs’ lawyers may view the decision as validation of arguments that marketing representations and system design choices can expose manufacturers to significant financial risk.
At the same time, automakers and technology companies developing semi-autonomous systems are closely monitoring the outcome. The case raises critical questions about:
- How juries interpret driver-assistance disclaimers
- Whether marketing language can create liability exposure
- The extent to which manufacturers must anticipate driver misuse
- The threshold for punitive damages in technology-related product claims
Growing Scrutiny of Autopilot Technology
Tesla’s Autopilot system has been under regulatory scrutiny for years, with investigations examining crash data, system limitations, and driver behavior. The company maintains that its vehicles, when used properly, enhance safety and reduce collision rates.
However, plaintiffs in this case argued that the system’s branding and public messaging contributed to overreliance. The jury’s decision suggests that at least in this instance, jurors believed Tesla
shared responsibility for the tragic outcome.
The upheld $243 million verdict sends a strong message that courts are willing to allow juries to weigh complex questions involving artificial intelligence, vehicle automation, and human supervision.
What Comes Next
While Tesla retains the right to appeal, the district court’s decision reinforces the enforceability of the verdict. If affirmed on appeal, the case could serve as a benchmark for future autonomous vehicle wrongful death claims and reshape
litigation strategies in the automotive and legal industries.
For now, the ruling stands as one of the most consequential judicial decisions involving Tesla Autopilot liability and a significant moment in the evolving legal landscape surrounding
self-driving technology and corporate accountability.
Stay ahead in the rapidly evolving legal landscape of autonomous vehicle litigation and product liability law. Explore exclusive attorney job openings in technology law, tort litigation, and regulatory compliance at
LawCrossing the leading platform connecting legal professionals with top law firm and in-house opportunities nationwide. Start your next career move today.
