Tesla challenges 243 million dollars in the trial of the death of the automated pilot

Tesla asked the judge to be 243 million dollars ruling It was submitted against the company in a lawsuit related to its automated pilot system, or to allow a new trial, according to the new court report.

The company’s lawyers argue that the ruling, which was issued by the jury earlier this month, “flies in the face of the Florida Basic Law, the condition of legal procedures and proper instinct.” This last deposit by Tesla Lawyers, again, tries to rest all the blame for the George McGe driver, who helped cause the accident.

The jury in the case eventually decided that the driver deserved two -thirds of the blame, and a third of Tesla.

The prominent case was focused on a 2019 crash in Florida. McGe was driving the Tesla Model S at night and used the company’s autopilot driver’s auxiliary system-which is a less powerful system than the “Full Self (Supervision) program. Both systems require the driver to keep their hands on the wheel.

When he approached the SUV vertically, McGe or Autopilot brake did not apply. The McGe carried a stop mark and hit the SUV, killing Nappel Benefides Leon, who was 20 years old and wounded her 20 -year -old friend Delon Annolo.

McGe was separate and settled with victims. This week, we learned to Tesla Reject From 60 million dollars from the victims a few months before the ruling was issued.

Tesla lawyers argue in the new deposit that the product’s responsibility law is supposed to punish manufacturers who “perform their cars in ways that are dangerously challenged ordinary consumers’ expectations or are unreasonable.”

“This is not this situation – not at the slightest, they wrote. They say that” McGe “is responsible, as he was reaching his phone when the accident occurred – a fact that he confessed to his case.

They argue that allowing the ruling to stand “will deter innovation, confuse the expectations of consumers, and lead manufacturers to abandon safety improvements for fear of exposure to major penalties when the driver uses his product.”

Tesla’s lawyers also take shots on opponents opposed to deposit lawyers, claiming that they “flooded this jury with a flood of very harmful but relevant evidence – about maintaining data, Elon Musk, and mixing accidents.”

They wrote: “The prosecutor’s lawyer has secured that this experience was never actually about the Tesla 2019 or the accident caused by the reckless McG my leadership.”

“The movement is the latest example of ignoring Tesla and your full mousse of the human cost of their defective technology,” said Brett Shrebar, the main lawyer of the prosecutors.

“The jury has heard all the facts and reached the correct conclusion that this was a state of shared responsibility, but this does not reduce the integrated role of Autopilot and the company’s signs of its capabilities that played in the accident that killed Naibel and Dillon permanently,” Schrebyr continued in the email. “We are confident that the court will support this ruling, which does not act as an accusation of the industry of independent vehicles, but to develop the reckless and unsafe Tesla and publish its automated pilot system.”

The article was updated to include a statement from Brett Shrebar, the main lawyer of the prosecutors.