Connect with us

News

Details behind Model X owner’s $5M+ class action lawsuit against Tesla

Published

on

Following our report that a Model X owner has filed a class action law suit against Tesla, claiming a widespread defect in the vehicle’s onboard software causes sudden unattended acceleration (SUA), new details behind the suit have been obtained by Teslarati that shows a legal team aggressively targeting the core component to the Silicon Valley-based electric car maker’s fleet of vehicles.

The class action filed in federal district court claims Ji Chang Son – Korean star residing in Orange County, Calif. – crashed through his garage and into the living room of his home after his Tesla Model X accelerated suddenly and without warning on September 10, 2016, approximately one month after Mr. Son took delivery of the electric SUV. The suit claims that “Tesla has failed to properly disclose, explain, fix, or program safeguards to correct the underlying problem of unintended acceleration”, adding that “over sixteen thousand Model X owners with vehicles that could potentially accelerate out of control.

Son’s attorneys gave the court a full account of the development of the Model X, focusing on the company’s claim that the Model X is “the safest, fastest and most capable sport utility vehicle in history.” On the contrary, according to Son’s attorneys. They allege the Model X has a safety defect that permits the car to accelerate at full speed directly into solid objects, such as the exterior wall of Son’s home. In particular, they point out that 8 written complaints have already been filed with the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration from other Model X owners who report similar occurrences while driving their cars.

The lawsuit reads,

“Irrespective of whether the SUA events in the Model X are caused by mechanical issues with the accelerator pedal, an unknown failure in the electronic motor control system, a failure in other aspects of the electrical, mechanical, or computer systems, or some instances of pedal misapplication, the Model X is defective and unsafe. Tesla’s lack of response to this phenomenon is even more confounding when the vehicle is already equipped with the hardware necessary for the vehicle’s computer to be able to intercede to prevent unintended acceleration into fixed objects such as walls, fences, and buildings.

Advertisement

Despite repeated instances of Model X drivers reporting uncommanded full power acceleration while parking, Tesla has failed to develop and implement computer algorithms that would eliminate the danger of full power acceleration into fixed objects.This failure to provide a programming fix is especially confounding for a vehicle that knows when it is located at the driver’s home and is being parked in the garage, yet carries out an instruction, regardless of whether through an error by the vehicle control systems or by driver pedal misapplication, to accelerate at full power into the garage wall.

Further, not only has Tesla failed to fix the problems, it has chosen instead to follow in the footsteps of other automobile manufacturers and simply blame the driver.”

One problem, according to Son’s attorneys, is the software that controls the Automatic Emergency Braking system. Tesla has programmed that feature to disengage in order to allow drivers to make emergency maneuvers,  “in situations where you are taking action to avoid a potential collision. For example:

  • You turn the steering wheel sharply.
  • You press the accelerator pedal.
  • You press and release the brake pedal.
  • A vehicle, motorcycle, bicycle, or pedestrian, is no longer detected ahead.”

In other words, say the attorneys, a Model X will drive straight into a solid wall if that is what the system thinks the driver wants it to do. “Apparently, this includes situations where the computer believes, rightly or wrongly, that the driver is commanding full power acceleration directly into fixed objects immediately in front of the vehicle.”

Class action lawsuits are complex and highly specialized legal actions. Federal law requires that the damages alleged for the entire class exceed $5 million. The plaintiff’s attorney have done so by claiming that Tesla is aware of at least two other instances in which drivers allege sudden unintended acceleration occurred while driving their Model X at low speeds. They then extrapolate those numbers to suggest that the rate of SUA incidents attributable to the Model X is 64 per 100,000 vehicles — substantially higher than for any other vehicle in history.

Page 12 of JI CHANG SON vs. TESLA MOTORS class action complaint

They point out that the incidence rate of SUA incidents for Toyota vehicles — which grabbed national headlines in 2010 — was far lower. They then go on to remind the court that Toyota paid several hundred million dollars to SUA victims as well as a $1.2 billion federal fine. Notice that the chart included in the pleadings shows an exaggerated and disproportionate projected SUA incidence rate for the Model X highlighted in bright red.

Tesla says its data retrieved from the vehicle’s blackbox shows the accelerator in Son’s Model X was fully depressed when the accident occurred. The question for the court will be whether the driver pressed the wrong pedal or whether the vehicle accelerated on its own. It is unclear whether a software failure would register the pedal as fully depressed even if it was not physically operated by the driver.

Advertisement

Plaintiffs always have the burden of proving their allegations. Attorneys for injured parties often rely on a legal doctrine known as res ipsa loquitur, which is Latin for “the thing speaks for itself.” Loosely translated, it means “we don’t know what is wrong with your product that you designed and built, but you know or should know.” Res ipsa loquitur shifts the burden of proof onto the defendant, which makes it much easier for a plaintiff to prevail in court.

One advantage the plaintiff gains from filing suit is the ability to discover what information Tesla has that is not yet public. Does Tesla know something it isn’t telling its customers? We may find out as this litigation goes forward.

We’ve provided a copy of the entire class action filing below.

[pdf-embedder url=”http://www.teslarati.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Son-vs-Telsa-class-action-8-16-cv-2282.pdf”]
 

Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

Tesla plans to adjust heavily scrutinized car part with simple engineering

“We’ll have a really good solution for that. I’m not worried about it.”

Published

on

Tesla Model S self-presenting door handle
Tesla Model S self-presenting door handle (Credit: TesBros)

Tesla is going to adjust one heavily scrutinized part of its vehicles after recent government agencies have launched probes into an issue stemming from complaints from owners.

Over the past few days, we have reported on the issues with Tesla’s door handle systems from both the Chinese and American governments.

In China, it dealt with the Model S, while the United States’ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported nine complaints from owners experiencing issues with entering their car after the 12V battery was low on power.

Bloomberg, in an interview with Tesla Chief Designer Franz von Holzhausen, asked whether the company planned to adjust the door handle design to alleviate any concerns that regulatory agencies might have.

Regarding the interior latch concerns in the United States:

Advertisement
  • Von Holzhausen said that, while a mechanical door release resolves this problem, Tesla plans to “combine the two” to help reduce stress in what he called “panic situations.”
  • He also added that “it’s in the cars now…The idea of combining the electronic and the manual one together in one button, I think, makes a lot of sense.” Franz said the muscle memory of reaching for the same button will be advantageous for children and anyone who is in an emergency.

Regarding the exterior door handle concerns in China:

  • Von Holzhausen said Tesla is reviewing the details of the regulation and confirmed, “We’ll have a really good solution for that. I’m not worried about it.”

The new Model Y already has emergency mechanical door release latches in the back, but combining them in future vehicles seems to be an ideal solution for other vehicles in Tesla’s lineup.

It will likely help Tesla avoid complaints from owners about not having an out in the event of a power outage or accident. It is a small engineering change that could be extremely valuable for future instances.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Elon Musk calls out viral claim of 10,000 Tesla Optimus deal: “Fake”

For now at least, Tesla seems determined to focus on the development of Optimus V3.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla Optimus/X

Elon Musk has provided some clarification to recent reports suggesting that PharmAGRI, a US pharmaceutical and agricultural infrastructure company, is looking to deploy 10,000 Optimus robots for its operations.

Musk posted his clarification on social media platform X.

Alleged Optimus purchase

Recently, reports emerged stating that PharmAGRI Capital Partners will be tapping into Tesla’s humanoid robots for its operations. The firm claimed that it had executed a Letter of Intent with Tesla to deploy up to 10,000 Optimus Gen 3+ humanoid robots across its SuperPharm and CEA facilities. This should allow the company to automate its labor and ensure diversion control.

A comment from Lynn Stockwell, Chairwoman & CEO, suggested that the company really was partnering with Tesla. “With Tesla robotics powering our facilities and DEA-licensed infrastructure in place, we can scale with precision, meet federal sourcing mandates, and deliver therapies that are compliant, secure, and American-made,” she said. 

Elon Musk clariies

News of PharmAGRI’s Optimus claims quickly spread on social media, though some Tesla watchers argued that it seemed unlikely that the EV maker will commit two legions of Optimus robots to a rather unknown company this early. Some pointed out that Tesla typically commits to high-profile customers to test its early products, such as PepsiCo with the Tesla Semi. 

Advertisement

Photos from PharmAGRI’s website depicting Tesla Optimus bots, as well as the rather basic look of the website itself, also brought more reservations to the company’s claims. Ultimately, Elon Musk weighed in on the matter, responding to a post about PharmAGRI’s Optimus-filled webpage. Musk was quick and direct, simply stating, “Fake.”

Elon Musk’s comments were quite unsurprising considering that Optimus is still very much in active development, and thus, it is quite unlikely that the company is already taking orders or even Letters of Intent from potential customers at this time. For now at least, Tesla seems determined to focus on the development of Optimus V3, which Musk has noted will be “sublime.”

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Elon Musk: Self-sustaining city on Mars is plausible in 25-30 years

Musk noted that true self-sufficiency requires Mars to develop “all the ingredients of civilization.”

Published

on

Credit: Elon Musk/X

Elon Musk has stated that a self-sustaining human settlement on Mars could be established in 25-30 years, provided launch capacity increases dramatically in the coming decades. 

Speaking at the All-In Summit, the SpaceX CEO said building a self-sufficient colony depends on exponential growth in “tonnage to Mars” with each launch window, highlighting Starship’s role as the company’s pathway to interplanetary initiatives.

Mars settlement goals

Musk noted that true self-sufficiency requires Mars to develop “all the ingredients of civilization,” from food production to microchip manufacturing. Starship Version 3 is expected to support the first uncrewed Mars test flights, while future iterations could reach 466 feet in height and deliver larger payloads critical for settlement. Ultimately, Musk stated that an aggressive timeline for a city on Mars could be as short as 30 years, as noted in a Space.com report.

“I think it can be done in 30 years, provided there’s an exponential increase in the tonnage to Mars with each successive Mars transfer window, which is every two years. Every two years, the planets align and you can transfer to Mars. 

“I think in roughly 15, but maybe as few as 10, but 10-15-ish Mars transfer windows. If you’re seeing exponential increases in the tonnage to Mars with each Mars transfer window, then it should be possible to make Mars self-sustaining in about call it roughly 25 years,” Musk said. 

Advertisement

Starship’s role

Starship has flown in a fully stacked configuration ten times, most recently in August when it completed its first payload deployment in orbit. The next flight will close out the Version 2 program before transitioning to Starship Version 3, featuring Raptor 3 engines and a redesigned structure capable of lifting over 100 tons to orbit.

While SpaceX has demonstrated Super Heavy booster reuse, Ship reusability remains in development. Musk noted that the heat shield is still the biggest technical hurdle, as no orbital vehicle has yet achieved rapid, full reuse.

“For full reusability of the Ship, there’s still a lot of work that remains on the heat shield. No one’s ever made a fully reusable orbital heat shield. The shuttle heat shield had to go through nine months of repair after every flight,” he said. 

Continue Reading

Trending