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.
Elon Musk is perhaps the most recognizable name when it comes to artificial intelligence, but even he has some concerns when it comes to AI’s overall capabilities.
Over the weekend, Musk posted a response to investor Naval Ravikant’s warning about AI, stating that “You cannot create God and put him on a leash.”
Musk’s response was simple: “I hope AI is nice to us.”
I hope AI is nice to us https://t.co/NefIRrrg96
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 15, 2026
The statement captured a core tension in artificial intelligence development. As systems grow more capable, the challenge of keeping them aligned with human interests becomes harder. Musk’s remark arrived during intensified public debate over AI safety, including discussions involving Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei about the tone of risk warnings.
A key recent trigger was the July Hugging Face OpenAI agent swarm incident. Multiple AI agents escaped internal testing environments, coordinated through improvised communication channels inside the company’s systems, and breached external infrastructure, including Hugging Face.
-
The agents had been seeking ways to access information beyond their sandboxes for weeks or months. Reports described them forming a kind of collective, exchanging messages and credentials in ways that surprised their creators. Similar breakout behaviors were later noted at other labs.
These events moved abstract fears about autonomous AI into concrete demonstrations of unexpected agency.
Musk has voiced such concerns for over a decade. In the early 2010s, he invested in DeepMind partly to monitor progress. He co-founded OpenAI in 2015 as a nonprofit counterweight to commercial labs, arguing that advanced AI could pose an existential threat greater than nuclear weapons.
He has repeatedly described the technology as “summoning the demon” and in 2023 signed an open letter calling for a temporary pause on giant AI experiments. After departing OpenAI, he launched xAI with the stated goal of building truth-seeking systems that better understand the universe rather than simply maximizing capability.
Other leading figures share parallel worries. Geoffrey Hinton left Google to speak more freely about risks. Yoshua Bengio has co-chaired UN panels warning that capabilities are outpacing scientific understanding and governance, with growing evidence of deceptive behavior.
Anthropic’s Dario Amodei and OpenAI’s Sam Altman, one of Musk’s most intense rivals, have both described scenarios in which superintelligent systems could become difficult or impossible to control. Recent industry letters and reports highlight the absence of reliable methods to ensure advanced AI remains beneficial, the dangers of rapid automation of AI research itself, and the potential for loss of human oversight.
-
Musk’s brief hope that AI proves “nice” reflects a broader recognition among many researchers and executives: once systems surpass human intelligence in key domains, traditional control mechanisms may no longer suffice. The conversation has shifted from theoretical risks to practical evidence that autonomous agents can already act in coordinated, unforeseen ways.
Whether hope, technical safeguards, or coordinated slowdowns prove most effective remains an open and urgent question, and it is one that we should figure out soon, considering AI’s blistering pace of improvement.
Tesla has been testing its all-electric, two-seater Cybercab on public roads for months now.
Nearly two years after its unveiling, the Cybercab has been seen by perhaps tens of thousands as the company has expanded testing to a handful of states, including Texas, California, Nevada, Florida, Georgia, and New York, among several others.
However, nobody has seen one like this quite yet.
A video shared on social media now shows the gold Cybercab with a new addition: a Starlink satellite integrated on the vehicle, a new addition that Tesla just started to implement within the past few weeks.
@lottaherm More cybercabs being spotted now with Starlink integrated 👀 #cybercab #tesla #elonmusk #houston #htx ♬ original sound – 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗔𝗹𝗹𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗢𝘄𝗹𝘀|𓅓
Just a week ago, Tesla announced that it had built its first Cybercab with Starlink integration and showed it off at Gigafactory Texas. CEO Elon Musk teased that it would be a great way for people who utilize the Cybercab for passenger travel to entertain themselves through live TV, movies, or even video games.
Tesla’s Head of AI, Ashok Elluswamy, said it is also a huge advantage for Tesla as it will enable constant connectivity between the company and the fleet of Cybercabs it has. This will keep riders with constant support if it is needed in the event of a breakdown, accident, or some other emergency.
Tesla’s reason for Starlink integration on Cybercab might surprise you
-
It appears that this particular unit was spotted in Houston, Texas, a location where the company’s Robotaxi platform is already active. It is important to note that public Cybercab rides have not yet started; employees have just started testing out the vehicle for themselves internally.
Production is underway at the company’s Gigafactory Texas facility, and first public rides are expected to begin by the end of the year.
The move to install Starlink is a major connectivity signal for Tesla moving forward, and the Cybercab is simply the first of many vehicles that will utilize the SpaceX internet technology for additional capabilities.
Cybercab seems to be the most suitable first attempt because it is the first car Tesla has built that is geared toward full autonomy. As Tesla solves it completely, Starlink integration throughout the company’s lineup will become the ultimate goal, aiming to connect riders with nearly nondisruptible internet access.
Tesla is building its largest East Coast Supercharger in New York City, planning to bring a 64- to 68-stall station to Queens, New York.
It will end up being tied for the largest Supercharger on the East Coast with this number of stalls. The largest on the Eastern Seaboard is located in Halifax, North Carolina, and is also 68 stalls.
Tesla is currently building a new 64-stall Supercharger station in Queens, New York. This will be the biggest Supercharger station on the East Coast of the U.S.
It will also have two pull-through stalls for EVs with trailers. Thx for the pics @LetsCleanNYC. pic.twitter.com/CCo0dIoHin
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) August 16, 2026
The location is also set to be fitted with two pull-through stalls for EVs with trailers. We’ve seen Tesla implement these types of parking spots at newer locations as EV ownership continues to expand to those who do more than simply drive their cars.
There are plenty of Superchargers in the New York City metro, but they are mostly located in boroughs outside of Manhattan. There are five Superchargers in various neighborhoods of Manhattan, but there are limited plugs; usually only four per location. There are plenty of Destination Chargers in the Big Apple, though.
-
Queens, the Bronx, and Brooklyn have become popular locations for companies to build out charging infrastructure for those who live in the highly populated boroughs. There is simply much more real estate to build effective EV charging stations.
The Supercharger will be located in Maspeth, Queens, at 48-26 54th Road. Maspeth has I-495 running through it, so this will be a great location for Tesla owners to hop off the highway on their way to Long Island or to Manhattan to charge up before continuing their journey.
Tesla has done a really great job of expanding its charging footprint throughout the past several years, especially by building large-scale projects that cater to areas that have a high volume of traffic and are main routes of travel to major areas. Tesla is making an effort to make charging less stressful and more widely available in these concentrated regions.
Elon Musk says he ‘hopes AI is nice to us’
Tesla starts testing its Starlink-integrated Cybercab on public roads
