Another fatal Tesla crash on Autopilot goes to trial, but with new evidence this time
Another fatal crash on Tesla Autopilot is going to trial, and while Tesla has won all of them in the past, this one has new evidence that could help the plaintiffs.
Over the years, there have been a handful of fatal crashes involving Tesla’s Advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) features, more commonly referred to as their brand names: Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (FSD) Package.
The families of the victims have taken the accidents to trials for wrongful death at times, but Tesla always won.
That’s because, in virtually all cases, Tesla was able to show that the driver was not paying attention at the moment of the accident or leading up to it. When using Autopilot or FSD Beta, Tesla tells drivers that they need to pay attention at all times and to be ready to take control at all times.
If drivers are not doing that, they are misusing the system.
However, some have argued that Tesla should take more responsibility for creating an exaggerated level of confidence in its ADAS systems and to limit the misuse by better ensuring that drivers are paying attention.
Now, a new trial is about to take place, and the lawyers of the family of the deceased Tesla driver have uncovered evidence that they claim shows Tesla knew it was too easy to abuse Autopilot.
The trial is about one of the most publicized Tesla Autopilot accidents. We reported on it extensively when it first happened and in follow-ups regarding several investigations of the crash.
The Tesla Autopilot Crash
The crash occurred in March 2018 and involved Apple engineer Walter Huang.
Huang was driving his Model X on Autopilot when it entered the median of a ramp on the highway as if it were a lane, a common problem with Tesla’s Autopilot at the time. About 150 meters after entering the median, it hit a barrier.
The impact was quite severe because there was no crash attenuator since it was already destroyed by a previous crash. The driver was rushed to the hospital, but he died of his injuries.
NHTSA investigated the accident and confirmed that the vehicle was using Autopilot at the time of the crash. However, according to phone data, it blamed the driver, who was playing a video game on his phone, and the lack of a crash attenuator, which affected the severity of the crash.
The Trial
The family has sued Tesla for wrongful death, and it is going to be quite an uphill battle for them because it looks like he was using his phone while driving, which is a traffic violation and against Tesla’s guidance on how to use Autopilot.
That said, the family’s lawyers benefit from learning from previous similar trials and they are taking a different approach. They are not denying Huang’s misuse of Autopilot, but they are focusing on Tesla’s communications, which they claim led to the driver misusing Autopilot.
As we previously reported, as part of the discovery process for the trial, the family’s lawyers have focused on several statements made by Tesla, and specifically Elon Musk, about Tesla’s Autopilot and Full Self-Driving efforts that could lead drivers to be overconfident in the systems.
In its defense, Tesla went as far as bizarrely claiming that some of Musk’s comments on the matter might have been deep fakes without specifying which ones.
The trial is now set to start next week in a San Jose court and more pieces of evidences are coming out as the court determines what they will be able to show to the jury.
Reuters report on an email that Jon McNeil, then Tesla’s president, sent to CEO Elon Musk and Sterling Anderson, Tesla’s head of Autopilot at the time, in which McNeil admitted to reading emails while using Autopilot:
“I got so comfortable under Autopilot, that I ended up blowing by exits because I was immersed in emails or calls (I know, I know, not a recommended use),.”
The lawyers are also arguing that Tesla never never “studied how quickly and effectively drivers could take control if Autopilot accidentally steers towards an obsacle,” based on Tesla witnesses and experts.
It sounds like the trial is going to revolve around what Tesla communicated to owners and what it has done internally to ensure owners use its systems safely.
But it will also focus on the fact that after the accident, Tesla has taken more steps to ensure driver attention, including introducing driver monitoring through its cabin-facing camera and more recently, it even had a recall to increase driver alerts to pay more attention when using Autopilot and FSD Beta.
The fact that Tesla had a recall recently over the issue could play a big role in this trial as it wasn’t the case in the previous ones won by the automaker.
Electrek’s Take
When cases involve a death, it’s always a sensitive matter, and the Tesla community is quick to put all the blame on the drivers.
That’s especially easy to do when the driver was using his phone at the moment of the crash, which is not legal, and he had seemingly more than a few seconds to react when the Autopilot made a mistake and went into the median.
That said, I think it is reasonable to explore, at least, the possibility that Tesla has contributed to the misuse of its own ADAS system.
We can’t deny that misuse was, and maybe still is, fairly common among Tesla owners at the time of this crash. We even reported on Elon Musk’s own wife at the time posting videos of her misusing Autopilot on her Instagram.
Now, on a legal basis, I don’t know how valuable this argument is, but it sounds like some experts think there’s a case.
Matthew Wansley, a Cardozo law school associate professor, agrees that Tesla had an obligation to prevent “foreseeable misuse”:
“If it was reasonably foreseeable to Tesla that someone would misuse the system, Tesla had an obligation to design the system in a way that prevented foreseeable misuse.”
Either way, I think it can’t hurt to debate the issue, especially if it helps publicize the fact that Tesla drivers need to pay attention at all times when using Tesla’s ADAS systems.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
In the US in 2024, wind and solar accounted for 17% of total electricity generation, surpassing coal, which fell to a record low of 15%, according to a new report from global energy think tank Ember.
Since US coal power peaked in 2007, wind and solar have overtaken coal in 24 states, with Illinois the latest to join the ranks in 2024, following Arizona, Colorado, Florida, and Maryland in 2023, the report finds. It’s the first analysis of full-year US electricity data, which was published by the EIA on February 26.
After being stagnant for 14 years, electricity demand started rising in recent years and saw a 3% increase in 2024, marking the fifth-highest level of rise this century. The increase in demand and fall in coal was met with higher solar, wind, and gas generation. Natural gas grew three times more than the decline in coal, increasing power sector CO2 emissions slightly (0.7%). Coal fell by the second smallest amount since 2014, as gas and clean energy growth met rising electricity demand, whereas historically, they have replaced coal.
Despite growing emissions, the carbon intensity of electricity continued to decline. The rise in power demand was much faster than the rise in power sector CO2 emissions, making each unit of electricity likely the cleanest it has ever been.
Solar grew faster than natural gas
Solar generation rose by 64 TWh in 2024, compared to natural gas, which rose 59 TWh. It remained the fastest-growing source of electricity, with its generation rising by 27% in 2024, surpassing hydropower generation for the time. It made up 81% of all new annual power capacity additions in the US. Gas added no net capacity, as new plants were offset with closures.
California and Nevada both surpassed 30% annual share of solar in their electricity mix for the first time (32% and 30%, respectively). California’s battery growth was key to its solar success. It installed 20% more battery capacity than it did solar capacity, which helped it transfer a significant share of its daytime solar to the evening. Texas installed more solar (7.4 GW) and battery capacity (3.9 GW) than even California. Yet the growth of solar was uneven – 28 states generated less than 5% of their electricity from solar in 2024, highlighting significant untapped potential – even before adding battery storage.
As solar grew massively, wind saw a modest 7% increase in generation, adding the least capacity in 10 years. However, it still generated 50% more power than solar in 2024, making 10% of the US electricity mix.
Solar and wind can meet rising demand
With the adoption of EVs, air conditioning, heat pumps, and rapid expansion of data centers, demand for electricity is guaranteed to grow in the coming years.
To meet the rise in demand, clean generation needs to grow faster. Unlike solar, wind’s growth has been slow. Clean energy is able to meet rising electricity demand alone – without raising bills, sacrificing security of supply, or further relying on gas.
“As the demand remained unchanged for years, solar, wind, and gas together worked to replace coal, transforming the US electricity system,” Dave Jones, chief analyst at Ember, said. “But now that electricity demand is rising fast, the battle is between solar and gas to meet this. And solar is winning – it added more generation than gas in 2024, and batteries will ensure that solar can grow more cheaply and quickly than gas.”
Daan Walter, principal at Ember, said, “Electricity demand is rising as new uses emerge across the US economy, from data centers to transportation and heating. This makes the case for solar and wind today even stronger – they are not only fast to deploy and cheap but also help stabilize energy costs in the long run.”
To limit power outages and make your home more resilient, consider going solar with a battery storage system. In order to find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. They have hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and you share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisers to help you every step of the way. Get started here. –trusted affiliate link*
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Elon Musk said today that Tesla will double its electric vehicle production in the US in the next two years.
What would that look like? Let’s do the math.
Today, during a press conference to promote Tesla at the White House, Tesla CEO Elon Musk said the following:
“As a function of the great policies of President Trump and his administration, and as an act of faith in America, Tesla is going to double vehicle output in the United States within the next two years.”
This raises many questions, as Musk’s phrasing of the statement suggests that Tesla is planning to add previously unannounced production capacity in response to Trump’s policies.
However, the reality could be different.
What is Tesla’s current production capacity in the US?
We only know Tesla’s installed capacity, which is much different than its actual production rate.
This is Tesla’s latest disclosed global production capacity at the end of 2024:
| Region | Model | Capacity | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| California | Model S / Model X | 100,000 | Production |
| Model 3 / Model Y | >550,000 | Production | |
| Shanghai | Model 3 / Model Y | >950,000 | Production |
| Berlin | Model Y | >375,000 | Production |
| Texas | Model Y | >250,000 | Production |
| Cybertruck | >125,000 | Production | |
| Cybercab | — | In development | |
| Nevada | Tesla Semi | — | Pilot production |
| TBD | Roadster | — | In development |
In the US, it adds up to 1,025,000 vehicles per year.
In reality, Tesla’s factories are operating at a much lower capacity.
Based on sales and inventory from 2024, Tesla is currently building fewer than 50,000 Model S/X vehicles per year compared to an installed capacity of 100,000 units.
As for Model 3 and Model Y, Tesla is currently building them in the US at a rate of about 600,000 units per year compared to claimed installed capacity of over 800,000 units.
Finally, the Cybertruck is being produced at a rate of less than 50,000 units per year compared to an installed capacity of over 125,000 units.
This adds up to Tesla producing 700,000 units per year in the US in 2024.
What will be Tesla’s new capacity?
Considering Musk mentioned that it will happen “within the next two years”, it is unlikely that he is referring to installed capacity.
The CEO is most likely talking about Tesla’s actual production, which would also make sense, especially considering he mentioned “output.”
Tesla currently outputs roughly 700,000 vehicles per year in the US.
Doubling that would mean bringing the total to 1.4 million units per year, which would be an incredible feat, but it’s not entirely a new plan for Tesla.
First off, Tesla has already announced plans to unveil two new, more affordable models this year. These models are going to be built on the same production lines as Model 3/Y, which would potentially enable Tesla to fully utilize its installed capacity for those vehicles.
That’s another 200,000 units already.
As already mentioned in Tesla’s installed capacity table, the company is currently developing its production facility for the Tesla Semi electric truck in Nevada.
Production is expected to start later this year and ramp up next year. Tesla has previously mentioned a goal of 50,000 units per year. It would leave Tesla roughly a year and half to ramp up to this capacity, which is ambitious, but not impossible.
Then there’s the “Cybercab”, which was unveiled last year.
The Cybercab is going to use Tesla’s next-gen vehicle platform and new manufacturing system, which is already being deployed at Gigafactory Texas.
Production is expected to start in 2026, and Musk has mentioned a production capacity of “at least 2 million units per year”. However, he said that this would likely come from more than one factory and it’s unclear if the other factory would be in the US.
Either way, Tesla would need to ramp up Cybercab production in the US to 450,000 units to make Musk’s announcement correct.
It’s fair to note that all of this was part of Tesla’s plans before the US elections, Trump’s coming into power, or the implementation of any policies whatsoever.
Electrek’s Take
Based on my analysis, this announcement is nothing new. It’s just a reiteration of Elon’s plans for Tesla in the US, which were established long before Trump came to power or even before Elon officially backed Trump.
It’s just more “corporate puffery” as Elon’s lawyers would say.
Also, if I wasn’t clear, we are only talking about production here. I doubt Tesla will have the demand for that, especially if Elon remains involved with the company.
The Cybercab doesn’t even have a steering wheel, and if Tesla doesn’t solve self-driving, it will be hard to justify producing 450,000 units per year.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports11 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports3 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business2 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway