A jury has ruled that Tesla is partly to blame for the death of a young woman who was hit by an electric car on Autopilot.

Naibel Benavides was stargazing at the time of the collision, which sent her flying 22m (75ft) through the air in Florida.

Her boyfriend was seriously injured in the 2019 incident, while her body was discovered in a wooded area.

The company has now been ordered to pay $243m (£183m) in damages to Ms Benavides’ family, and to her partner Dillon Angulo.

Jurors concluded that not all of the blame could be put on a reckless driver who admitted he was distracted by his phone before he hit the young couple.

The motorist, George McGee, reached a separate settlement with the victims’ families in an earlier case.

Brett Schreiber, who represented the victims, said: “Tesla designed Autopilot only for controlled-access highways yet deliberately chose not to restrict drivers from using it elsewhere, alongside Elon Musk telling the world Autopilot drove better than humans.

“Today’s verdict represents justice for Naibel’s tragic death and Dillon’s lifelong injuries.”

Tesla – and Elon Musk – have said it will appeal the verdict, labelling it “wrong” and a setback for automotive safety.

The verdict would also work to “jeopardise Tesla’s and the entire industry’s efforts to develop and implement life-saving technology”, the company warmed.

Tesla had claimed Mr McGee was solely to blame for the fatal crash because he had reached down to pick up a dropped mobile phone as his Model S sped through an intersection in Key Largo, Florida, at about 62mph.

Mr McGee allegedly did not receive alerts as he ran a stop sign and a red light – and the plaintiffs’ lawyer argued that the driver’s assistance should have warned the driver and braked before the collision.

The collision sent Ms Benavides Leon flying 22m (75ft) through the air, with her body later being discovered in a wooded area, while Mr Angulo suffered serious injuries.

“To be clear, no car in 2019, and none today, would have prevented this crash,” Tesla said. “This was never about Autopilot; it was a fiction concocted by plaintiffs’ lawyers blaming the car when the driver – from day one – admitted and accepted responsibility.”

Read more from Sky News:
Trump hits out again at ‘stubborn moron’
World’s oldest baby born in the US

Lawyers for the plaintiffs also alleged that Tesla either hid or lost key evidence, including data and video recorded seconds before the collision.

They showed the court that the company had the evidence all along, despite repeated denials, after hiring a forensic data expert who dug it up.

After being shown the evidence, Tesla said it made a mistake and honestly hadn’t thought it was there.

Past cases against Tesla were dismissed or settled, so the verdict in this case could encourage more legal action.

Miguel Custodio, a car crash lawyer not involved in this trial, added: “This will open the floodgates. It will embolden a lot of people to come to court.”

The verdict comes as Mr Musk plans to roll out a driverless taxi service, hoping to convince people his vehicles are safe enough to drive on their own.

Improvements to the company’s driver assistance and partial self-driving features have been made in recent years – but in 2023, 2.3 million Tesla vehicles were recalled amid fears Autopilot was failing to sufficiently alert drivers not paying attention to the road.

Donald Trump’s trade war has been difficult to keep up with, to put it mildly.

For all the threats and bluster of the US election campaign last year to the on-off implementation of trade tariffs – and more threats – since he returned to the White House in January, the president‘s protectionist agenda has been haphazard.

Trading partners, export-focused firms, customs agents and even his own trade team have had a lot on their plates as deadlines were imposed – and then retracted – and the tariff numbers tinkered.

Money latest: Why your internet feels slower

While the UK was the first country to secure a truce of sorts, described as a “deal”, the vast majority of nations have failed to secure any agreement.

Deal or no deal, no country is on better trading terms with the United States than it was when Trump 2.0 began.

Here, we examine what nations and blocs are on the hook for, and the potential consequences, as Mr Trump’s suspended “reciprocal” tariffs prepare to take effect. That will now not happen until 7 August.

Why was 1 August such an important date?

To understand the present day, we must first wind the clock back to early April.

Then, Mr Trump proudly showed off a board in the White House Rose Garden containing a list of countries and the tariffs they would immediately face in retaliation for the rates they impose on US-made goods. He called it “liberation day”.

The tariff numbers were big and financial markets took fright.

Just days later, the president announced a 90-day pause in those rates for all countries except China, to allow for negotiations.

The initial deadline of 9 July was then extended again to 1 August. Late on 31 July, Mr Trump signed the executive order but said that the tariff rates would not kick in for seven additional days to allow for the orders to be fully communicated.

Since April, only eight countries or trading blocs have agreed “deals” to limit the reciprocal tariffs and – in some cases – sectoral tariffs already in place.

Who has agreed a deal over the past 120 days?

The UK, Japan, Indonesia, the European Union and South Korea are among the eight to be facing lower rates than had been threatened back in April.

China has not really done a deal but it is no longer facing punitive tariffs above 100%.

Its decision to retaliate against US levies prompted a truce level to be agreed between the pair, pending further talks.

There’s a backlash against the EU over its deal, with many national leaders accusing the European Commission of giving in too easily. A broad 15% rate is to apply, down from the threatened 30%, while the bloc has also committed to US investment and to pay for US-produced natural gas.

Where does the UK stand?

We’ve already mentioned that the UK was the first to avert the worst of what was threatened.

While a 10% baseline tariff covers the vast majority of the goods we send to the US, aerospace products are exempt.

Our steel sector has not been subjected to Trump’s 50% tariffs and has been facing down a 25% rate. The government announced on Thursday that it would not apply under the terms of a quota system.

UK car exports were on a 25% rate until the end of June when the deal agreed in May took that down to 10% under a similar quota arrangement that exempts the first 100,000 cars from a levy.

Who has not done a deal?

Canada is among the big names facing a 35% baseline tariff rate. That is up from 25% and covers all goods not subject to a US-Mexico-Canada trade agreement that involves rules of origin.

America is its biggest export market and it has long been in Trump’s sights.

Mexico, another country deeply ingrained in the US supply chain, is facing a 30% rate but has been given an extra 90 days to secure a deal.

Brazil is facing a 50% rate. For India, it’s 25%.

What are the consequences?

This is where it all gets a bit woolly – for good reasons.

The trade war is unprecedented in scale, given the global nature of modern business.

It takes time for official statistics to catch up, especially when tariff rates chop and change so much.

Any duties on exports to the United States are a threat to company sales and economic growth alike – in both the US and the rest of the world. Many carmakers, for example, have refused to offer guidance on their outlooks for revenue and profits.

Apple warned on Thursday night that US tariffs would add $1.1bn of costs in the three months to September alone.

Barriers to business are never good but the International Monetary Fund earlier this week raised its forecast for global economic growth this year from 2.8% to 3%.

Some of that increase can be explained by the deals involving major economies, including Japan, the EU and UK.

US growth figures have been skewed by the rush to beat import tariffs.

Read more:
Trump signs executive order for reciprocal tariffs
Aston Martin outlines plan to ease US tariff hit

The big risk ahead?

It’s a self-inflicted wound.

The elephant in the room is inflation. Countries imposing duties on their imports force the recipient of those goods to foot the additional bill. Do the buyers swallow it or pass it on?

The latest US data contained strong evidence that tariff charges were now making their way down the country’s supply chains, threatening to squeeze American consumers in the months ahead.

It’s why the US central bank has been refusing demands from Mr Trump to cut interest rates. You don’t slow the pace of price rises by making borrowing costs cheaper.

A prolonged period of higher inflation would not go down well with US businesses or voters. It’s why financial markets have followed a recent trend known as TACO, helping stock markets remain at record levels.

The belief is that Trump always chickens out. He may have to back down if inflation takes off.

It is “Liberation Day” III – the third tariff deadline set by Donald Trump.

From today, countries without bilateral trade agreements face reciprocal tariffs – ranging from 25% to 50% – with a baseline of 15% to 20% for any not making a deal.

He has delayed twice, from April to July and from July to August, but hammered this date home in his trademark caps-on style: “THE AUGUST FIRST DEADLINE STANDS STRONG, AND WILL NOT BE EXTENDED. A BIG DAY FOR AMERICA!!!”

“Will not be extended” for anyone but Mexico, it seems. The country secured a 90-day extension at the last minute, with Mr Trump citing the “complexities” of the border.

By close of business on the eve of deadline, he had a handful of framework deals – some significant – including the UK (10%), the EU, Japan and South Korea (15%), Indonesia and the Philippines (19%), Vietnam (20%).

On the EU agreement, which he struck in Scotland, the president said: “It’s a very powerful deal, it’s a big deal, it’s the biggest of all the deals.”

But what happened to the “90 deals in 90 days” touted by the White House earlier this year?

The short answer is they were replaced by letters of instruction to pay a tariff set by the US.

Amid of flurry of late activity, the US played hardball with major trading partners like Canada.

“For the rest of the world, we’re going to have things done by Friday,” said US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick – the “rest of the world” meaning everyone but China.

There is, apparently, the “framework of a deal” between the world’s two largest economies, but talks between Washington and Beijing are continuing.

Read more US news:
Top Trump officials to visit Gaza
Heavy rain and flash floods batter east coast

In terms of wins, he can claim some significant deals and point to his tariffs having generated an impressive $27bn (£20.4bn) in June, not bad for a single month.

But the legality of the approach is under siege – with the US Court of International Trade ruling that the “Liberation Day” tariffs exceeded the president’s authority, with enforcement paused pending appeal.

The deadline has stirred the pot, forcing a handful of deals onto the table. Whether they stick or survive legal scrutiny is far from settled.

But the playbook remains the same – threaten the world with trade chaos, whittle it down, celebrate the wins, and pray no one checks what’s legal.