Tesla will appeal a recent jury verdict that held it partially liable for a fatal crash that occurred in Key Largo, Florida, in 2019.

An eight-person jury ruled that Tesla’s driver assistance technology was at least partially to blame for a crash when a vehicle driven by George McGee went off the road and hit a couple, killing a 22-year-old and injuring the other.

The jury found that Tesla’s tech was found to enable McGee to take his eyes off the road, despite the company warning drivers and vehicle operators that its systems are not a replacement for a human driver.

The company states on its website and Owner’s Manual that Autopilot and Full Self-Driving are not fully autonomous, and that drivers must be ready to take over in case of an emergency. Its website says:

“Autopilot is a driver assistance system that is intended to be used only with a fully attentive driver. It does not turn a Tesla into a fully autonomous vehicle.

Before enabling Autopilot, you must agree to ‘keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times’ and to always ‘maintain control and responsibility for your vehicle.’ Once engaged, Autopilot will also deliver an escalating series of visual and audio warnings, reminding you to place your hands on the wheel if insufficient torque is applied or your vehicle otherwise detects you may not be attentive enough to the road ahead. If you repeatedly ignore these warnings, you will be locked out from using Autopilot during that trip.

You can override any of Autopilot’s features at any time by steering or applying the accelerator at any time.”

Despite this, and the fact that McGee admitted to “fishing for his phone” after it fell, Tesla was ordered to pay hundreds of millions in damages.

Tesla attorney Joel Smith said in court (via Washington Post):

“He said he was fishing for his phone. It’s a fact. That happens in any car. That isolates the cause. The cause is he dropped his cell phone.”

In total, Tesla is responsible for $324 million in payouts: $200 million in punitive damages, $35 million to the deceased’s mother, $24 million to their father, and $70 million to their boyfriend, who was also struck but was injured and not killed.

The family of the deceased, Naibel Benavides Leon, also sued the driver and reached a settlement out of court. The family opened the federal suit against Tesla in 2024, alleging that Tesla was to blame because it operated its technology on a road “it was not designed for,” the report states.

Despite the disclosures and warnings Tesla lists in numerous places to its drivers and users of both Autopilot and Full Self-Driving, as well as all of its active safety features, the operator remains responsible for paying attention.

CEO Elon Musk confirmed it would appeal the jury’s decision:

We will

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 1, 2025

Advertisement

The driver being distracted is a big part of this case that seemed to be forgotten as the jury came to its decision. Tesla’s disclosures and warnings, as well as McGee’s admission of being distracted, seem to be enough to take any responsibility off the company.

The appeal process will potentially shed more light on this, especially as this will be a main point of emphasis for Tesla’s defense team.

Elon Musk continues to raise concerns over his control of Tesla as its CEO and one of its founders, as activist shareholders seem to be a viable threat to the company in his eyes.

Musk has voiced concerns over voting control of Tesla and the possibility of him being ousted by shareholders who do not necessarily have the company’s future in mind. Instead, they could be looking to oust Musk because of his political beliefs or because of his vast wealth.

We saw an example of that as shareholders voted on two separate occasions to award Musk a 2018 compensation package that was earned as Tesla met various growth goals through the CEO’s leadership.

Despite shareholders voting to award Musk with the compensation package on two separate occasions, once in 2018 and again in 2024, Delaware Chancery Court Judge Kathaleen McCormick denied the CEO the money both times. At one time, she called it an “unfathomable sum.”

Musk’s current stake in Tesla stands at 12.8 percent, but he has an option to purchase 304 million shares, which, if exercised, after taxes, he says, would bump his voting control up about 4 percent.

However, this is not enough of a stake in the company, as he believes a roughly 25 percent ownership stake would be enough “to be influential, but not so much that I can’t be overturned,” he said in January 2024.

I am uncomfortable growing Tesla to be a leader in AI & robotics without having ~25% voting control. Enough to be influential, but not so much that I can’t be overturned.

Unless that is the case, I would prefer to build products outside of Tesla. You don’t seem to understand…

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 15, 2024

Musk’s concerns were echoed in another X post from Thursday, where he confirmed he has no current personal loans against Tesla stock, and he reiterated his concerns of being ousted from the company by those he has referred to in the past as “activist shareholders.”

Elon Musk explains why he wants 25% voting share at Tesla: “I just want to be an effective steward of very powerful technology”

The CEO said during the company’s earnings call in late July:

“That is a major concern for me, as I’ve mentioned in the past. I hope that is addressed at the upcoming shareholders’ meeting. But, yeah, it is a big deal. I want to find that I’ve got so little control that I can easily be ousted by activist shareholders after having built this army of humanoid robots. I think my control over Tesla, Inc. should be enough to ensure that it goes in a good direction, but not so much control that I can’t be thrown out if I go crazy.”

The X post from Thursday said:

Just fyi I don’t have personal loans at this time against Tesla stock.

Also, the taxes on the options are ~45%, so net gain in voting control is more like 4%.

Advertisement

It is worrying in that I don’t want to build millions of robots and then potentially be ousted by activists and…

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 31, 2025

There is a concern that Musk could eventually put his money where his mouth is, and if politicians and judges are able to limit his ownership stake as they’ve been able to do with his pay package, he could eventually leave the company.

The company’s shareholders voted overwhelmingly to approve Musk’s pay package. A vast majority of those who voted to get Musk paid still want him to be running Tesla’s day-to-day operations. Without his guidance, the company could face a major restructuring and would have a vastly new look and thesis.

Tesla’s Robotaxi service is still in its earliest days, but some consumers are already finding surprising value in the autonomous ride-hailing system. 

This was hinted at in recent comments on social media platform X. 

Robotaxi Ramp

Tesla initially launched its Robotaxi service in Austin, though the company more recently launched it in the Bay Area. Tesla’s geofence for its Robotaxi service in the Bay Area is massive, covering several times the area that is currently serviced by rival Waymo. 

As noted by the EV community members on social media, going end-to-end in Tesla’s Bay Area geofence would likely take over an hour’s worth of driving. That’s an impressive launch for the Robotaxi service in California, and considering Tesla’s momentum, its California geofence will likely grow substantially in the coming months.

Secret Advantage

As noted by Tesla owner and photographer @billykyle, the Tesla Robotaxi service actually has key advantages for people who travel a lot for their work. As per the Tesla owner, using a Robotaxi service would give back so much of his time considering that he gets about 5-7 shoots per day at times. 

“I’ve been reflecting on how much of a game changer this is. As a photographer that runs my own business, servicing clients all around the Philadelphia area, I could ditch having a car and let an autonomous vehicle drive me between my 5-7 shoots I have per day. This would give me so much time back to work and message clients,” the photographer wrote in a post on X.

The Tesla owner also noted that the Robotaxi service could also solve issues with parking, as it could be tricky in cities. The Robotaxi service’s driverless nature also avoids the issue of rude and incompetent ride-hailing drivers, which are unfortunately prevalent in services such as Uber and Lyft. Ultimately, just like Unsupervised FSD, Tesla’s Robotaxi service has the potential to reclaim time for consumers. And as anyone in the business sphere would attest, time is ultimately money.