News
Tesla argues human error caused fatal 2019 crash, not Autopilot: report
Tesla now faces the jury’s verdict in a trial alleging that Autopilot caused a fatality, and the trial is expected to set a precedent for future cases surrounding advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS). During closing arguments on Tuesday, an attorney for the plaintiffs pointed to an analysis Tesla conducted two years before the accident, claiming that the automaker knowingly sold the Model 3 with a safety issue related to its steering.
The trial began in California late last month after a 2019 incident in which 37-year-old Micah Lee veered off a highway outside Los Angeles at 65 miles per hour, suddenly striking a palm tree before the vehicle burst into flames. According to court documents, the crash killed Lee and injured both of his passengers, one of whom was an 8-year-old boy.
Lee’s passengers and estate initiated a civil lawsuit against Tesla, alleging that the company knew that Autopilot and its other safety systems were defective when it sold the Model 3.
Tesla has denied any liability in the accident, claiming that Lee had consumed alcohol before getting behind the wheel and saying it could not detect if Autopilot was engaged at the time of the crash.
This and other trials come as regulatory requirements for ADAS suites are just emerging, and the cases are expected to help navigate future court cases related to accidents with the systems.
According to Reuters, the attorney for the plaintiffs, Jonathan Michaels, showed the jury an internal safety analysis from Tesla in 2017 during closing arguments, in which employees identified “incorrect steering command” as a potential safety issue. Michaels said the issue involved an “excessive” steering wheel angle, arguing that Tesla was aware of related safety problems before selling the Model 3.
“They predicted this was going to happen. They knew about it. They named it,” Michaels said.
Michaels also said that Tesla created a specific protocol to deal with affected customers and that the company instructed workers to avoid accepting liability for the issue. Michaels also echoed prior arguments, saying that Tesla knew it was releasing Autopilot in an experimental state, though it needed to do so to boost market share.
“They had no regard for the loss of life,” Michaels added.
Michael Carey, Tesla’s attorney, said that the 2017 analysis wasn’t meant to identify the defect but instead was meant to help avoid any potential safety issues that could theoretically occur. Carey also said that Tesla developed a system to prevent Autopilot from making the same turn that had caused the crash.
Carey said that the subsequent development of the safety system “is a brick wall standing in the way of plaintiffs’ claim,” adding that there haven’t been any other cases where a Tesla has maneuvered the way that Lee’s did.
Instead, Carey argued to the jury that the crash’s simplest explanation was human error, asking jurors to avoid awarding damages on behalf of the severe injuries encountered by the victims.
“Empathy is a real thing, we’re not saying its not,” Carey argued. “But it does not make cars defective.”
Earlier this month, a federal judge in California ruled in Tesla’s favor in a similar case looking at whether the automaker misled consumers about its Autopilot system’s capabilities. In that case, which had the chance to become a class-action lawsuit, the judge ruled that most of the involved plaintiffs had signed an arbitration clause when purchasing the vehicle, requiring the claims to be settled outside of court.
The cases are expected to set precedents in court for future trials involving Tesla’s Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (FSD) beta systems and the degree of the automaker’s responsibility in accidents related to their engagement. Tesla is also facing additional information requests from the U.S. Department of Justice related to its Autopilot and FSD beta.
Tesla has received more requests regarding Autopilot and FSD from DOJ
What are your thoughts? Let me know at zach@teslarati.com, find me on X at @zacharyvisconti, or send your tips to us at tips@teslarati.com.
News
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
SpaceX pushed Starship Flight 13 to Friday, blaming weather instead of the previous engine issues.
SpaceX called off Thursday’s launch attempt of Starship Flight 13, pushing the mission to Friday because of weather tied to Tropical Storm Bertha. The company confirmed the delay on X, noting “Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather. A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won’t be possible with today’s weather conditions.”
This is the second delay for Flight 13 in two weeks. SpaceX first tried to launch the mission on July 16, but the countdown ended in an automated abort at T-0 when four of Super Heavy Booster 20’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Musk said at the time that two Raptors would need to be removed and replaced, as Teslarati reported. The company spent the following week destacking Ship 40 and Booster 20, swapping engines, and running leak checks before restacking the vehicle on Pad 2 Wednesday night, according to Spaceflight Now’s live coverage.
Unlike the engine problem, Thursday’s delay has nothing to do with the hardware. SpaceX wants clean footage of Starship’s heat shield captured from the ground as the vehicle flies through max dynamic pressure, something the storm’s cloud cover over South Texas would not allow. The company said visibility should improve for Friday’s attempt, with the same 90 minute window opening at 5:45 p.m. CT.
Flight 13 will be the second outing for the V3 versions of Starship and Super Heavy, following their debut on Flight 12 in May. The mission carries 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, the first time SpaceX has flown operational satellites rather than mass simulators on Starship. Six of those satellites are fitted with cameras to inspect the heat shield from a different angle during ascent, giving engineers a second data source beyond the ground imagery the weather is currently blocking.
Booster 20 will attempt a boostback burn and a splashdown landing burn in the Gulf of America, while Ship 40 follows a suborbital trajectory toward a landing in the Indian Ocean. The flight plan largely mirrors Flight 12, though the booster will run a more aggressive ascent burn after max Q this time, and the ship’s heat shield includes load sensing tiles meant to measure stress at the higher dynamic pressure SpaceX is targeting.
If Friday’s attempt succeeds, Flight 13 could be the last suborbital test in the program. SpaceX is already looking to push for an orbital flight on Flight 14.
Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) endured one of its sharpest single-day declines in years on July 23, tumbling approximately 14.5 percent and closing near $320 after opening the session around $374. The drop erased more than $140 billion in market value amid heavy trading volume and left the shares at multi-week lows.
The sell-off followed the company’s second-quarter 2026 results, released the previous evening. Tesla reported record revenue of $28.2 billion, up 26 percent year over year, driven by a Q2-record 480,126 vehicle deliveries. Energy storage deployments also rose strongly.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Yet profitability disappointed sharply. Operating income fell 57 percent to $398 million, compressing the operating margin to just 1.4 percent. Non-GAAP earnings per share came in at $0.33, well below the roughly $0.53 analysts had expected. Free cash flow turned negative by $1.1 billion as capital expenditures surged 142 percent to $5.8 billion, largely tied to accelerated spending on artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous systems.
The losses on capex were expected, as Tesla said it would be spending heavily in 2026.
Investors also reacted to lingering uncertainty surrounding key product timelines. During the Earnings Call, management reiterated ambitions for Robotaxi deployment and the Optimus humanoid robot, but offered limited new concrete milestones, renewing questions about execution pace that have long accompanied Tesla’s ambitious roadmap.
The magnitude of the decline places it among Tesla’s more severe one-day percentage losses since its 2010 initial public offering. Historically, the two largest single-day drops (split-adjusted) remain September 8, 2020, when shares fell 21.1 percent amid broader market volatility and valuation concerns, and January 13, 2012, with a 19.3 percent plunge during the company’s early growth struggles.
Other notable declines include an 18.6 percent drop on March 16, 2020, at the onset of pandemic-related market turmoil. Thursday’s move ranks roughly ninth on the all-time list but stands out as the steepest in more than a year.
Despite the short-term pain, Tesla’s long-term trajectory has repeatedly recovered from such volatility. The latest results underscore both the strength of its core automotive and energy businesses and the near-term costs of heavy investment in next-generation technologies.
Elon Musk clapped back at France’s decision to withhold the approval for Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) Supervised system, projecting a clear and blunt message to French Transport Minister Phillippe Tabarot, after he publicly rejected the technology in its current form.
Tabarot outlines several concerns with Tesla Full Self-Driving in a detailed video statement, where he said, “The safety trade-offs are not yet sufficient to authorize it as it currently stands,” he said. He emphasized that FSD is not a true self-driving system and that the driver remains fully responsible.
Key issues Tabarot also brought up included allowing speeding when surrounding traffic exceeds limits and what he believes are insufficient guarantees of driver attention during complex urban maneuvers such as lane changes, intersections, and roundabouts.
Delaying the approval of FSD in France will cost lives
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 22, 2026
While acknowledging technological progress and France’s support for autonomous innovation, Tabarot stressed that deployment must prioritize road safety. He noted ongoing technical discussions with Tesla, the Netherlands, and other European partners, with further ecosystem meetings planned for the fall.
Musk’s rebuke highlights the human cost of regulatory caution. Tesla’s latest safety reports provide compelling data supporting accelerated adoption. In the most recent 12-month period, vehicles using FSD (Supervised) recorded one major collision per approximately 5.1 million miles driven, dramatically better than the U.S. national average of one crash per 698,000 miles.
Even Tesla vehicles driven manually with active safety features outperform the average by a wide margin. These figures come from billions of real-world miles of telemetry, showing FSD vehicles involved in far fewer incidents than both manual Teslas and the broader U.S. fleet.
Critics argue Tesla’s comparisons require careful scrutiny regarding reporting thresholds and fleet demographics, yet the data consistently positions FSD as a potential lifesaver. With road fatalities remaining a leading cause of death worldwide, Musk contends that proven safer technology should not face prolonged bureaucratic hurdles.
France’s measured approach reflects the broader European regulatory caution, which many, especially Musk, have been critical of in the past. However, as autonomous systems from Tesla and competitors like Waymo demonstrate superior safety in independent studies, pressure is mounting for harmonized approvals.
Musk’s warning carries the belief that every month of delay may equate to avoidable tragedies on European roads.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
Tesla stock tumbles after earnings, one of its sharpest single-day declines
