Tesla Settles Fatal Crash Suit Ahead of California Trial | Hacker News Reader

Tesla Settles Fatal Crash Suit Ahead of California Trial

ttnews.com

86 pointsTheAlchemist91 comments

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1527749734668050433

The inference to draw is that the case was just?

Or the tweet was bullshit, and Tesla will do what every company does and determine whether it is better to settle or not based on the financial cost/benefit and not the truth or validity of the claim.

Or, that his commitment is at odds with his fiduciary duty.

Or that the man posts stuff whether it's true or not. Based on the history, maybe it's safer to ignore this and just judge the actions.

I wouldn't be surprised if Elon considers it just. Most people consider it just that a revolutionary technology owner is being held liable for their actions, even if they are nearly a decade afterwards.

Regulation for big corporations are more like suggestions these days, so this may even feel "fair enough" for Elon in retrospect.

ouff, this tweet did not age well

Sounds like they must have settled a just case.

Yep, it's the second case they settle in 2 months.

Must have been just cases then...

The inference that an out of court settlement instead of trial by jury means an unjust outcome is an oversimplification at best.

For people who do not want to wait for multiple Twitter spinners and multiple login and cookie popups, the content is:

" My commitment:

- We will never seek victory in a just case against us, even if we will probably win.

- We will never surrender/settle an unjust case against us, even if we will probably lose. "

Posted when?

May 20, 2022

It could have been posted May 20, 2024 and I don't think it would have any real meaning. Musk has zero credibility with this sort of thing regardless of when it was posted.

Got anything to substantiate this?

This website does a pretty good job: https://motherfrunker.ca/fsd/

First glance at that website https://motherfrunker.ca/fsd/ and I find this:

"September 2014 They will be a factor of 10 safer than a person [at the wheel] in a six-year time frame"

Which you can mostly write off with this data https://electrek.co/2024/05/22/tesla-finally-releases-autopi...

So maybe FSD isn't complete, but Tesla Autopilot has made a measurable improvement to fatalities and injuries on roads. The data shows this clearly.

Except for the part where their “safety reports” are aggressively and intentionally falsified to push product.

They intentionally deceive by comparing extremely non-comparable numbers while avoiding making any necessary and basic adjustments that harm their story. Of their many lies, they use pyrotechnic (airbag) deployments for their own numbers, but compare against all crashes. The NHTSA investigation [1] into Tesla ADAS crashes points out how publicly available data, that Tesla has easy access to and that any competent statistician can interpret, indicates pyrotechnic deployment occurs in only ~18% of crashes. Just that single factor alone shows Tesla has failed to disclose a literal 5x adjustment, let alone the other adjustments that have no doubt been concealed or ignored to avoid learning inconvenient and unmarketable truths.

Their intentional concealment of 5x errors shows their data analysis is entirely faulty and untrustworthy and has been for years.

[1] https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2022/INCR-EA22002-14496.pdf

https://elonmusk.today/

Why does Tesla not ban him from making promises in tweets? Is it because they help the stock price more than they hurt it?

You try telling Elon Musk not to post stuff. He ended up being forced to buy Twitter and pay an SEC fine because he tweets too much. He's going to post whatever he feels like, no matter what you, or anyone at Tesla, or the SEC says.

"He's not going to listen to anything anyone at the SEC says!"

"...but he will pay their fines."

what a renegade!

"A fine is just an overpriced cost."

I think lawyers have a different meaning for hard core. I mean, it sounds absurd to call your lawyers hard core.

Just to do what he is asking you would need a team like oj had but for each simultaneous case. He should start a law firm next.

Elon Musk says: "My commitment:

- We will never seek victory in a just case against us, even if we will probably win.

- We will never surrender/settle an unjust case against us, even if we will probably lose. "

And yet Elon Musk filed harassing lawsuits against his critics Media Matters for America and the Center for Countering Digital Hate.

Musk's SLAPP suits are contrary to his purported love of free speech. They are manifestly unjust.

https://nitter.poast.org/elonmusk/status/1527749734668050433

the defective design of the door latch system entrapping him in the vehicle

This was discussed furiously in the HN articles of the time; the latch apparently has a manual actuator, but how to use it is not obvious at all, especially in an emergency.

I also noticed the subtitle is "Settlement Comes After Automaker in April Struck Confidential Accord". That had to be deliberate.

> the latch apparently has a manual actuator, but how to use it is not obvious at all, especially in an emergency.

The result of prioritizing design over function — and in this case, safety!

Is it even that? Are there a lot of people that are put off by mechanical pulls?

Why would you be caught in a car where the doors open like _this_ instead of like _this_?

No but novel UX gimmicks can be appealing to some customers. Tesla cars have a number of unusual features that are functionally bad but get attention.

Maybe ideally they should have mixed the two: a light pull does the electronic thing (rolls windows clear of weather stripping, etc), a hard pull does the manual thing.

I test drove a Lexus TX recently, it has a door assist too, but it's real simple: push the handle and the door assist operates, pull the handle (maybe twice if locked) and the door operates like a normal door. Easy and intuitive.

Apologies, but what is "door assist"?

(My car must be old, from an era when doors were simpler)

Apparently it's too hard to open a car door yourself anymore. I guess Tesla popularized pushing a button and then the car electrically pushes open the door a bit; but Lexus has it too now. Electric sliding doors in minivans are pretty old too, but this is for the front doors.

I don't know about the older Model S, but in my Model 3 the mechanical door opener is completely blank and unmarked.

I love my Tesla but that company is horrible with making it apparent how to open doors. My passengers never know how to get in or out.

Worse, look at the Cybertruck... I swear their next car will only open the doors from the app.

The older 3 had the rear door manual latch under the liner in the door pocket and in the first year or so there wasn’t anything to easily grab it

I remember something about the manual door latch being behind a speaker like cover in early Tesla models?

Also, in the last year or so, I remember if you use the manual latch, it will crack the window?

> I remember something about the manual door latch being behind a speaker like cover in early Tesla models?

Was curious and did some searching, AFAICT it looks like someone on the front-seat is often OK, but if you're in the back seat you may be in trouble.

Model S involves a cable behind your ankles:

https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/models/en_us/GUID-AAD769C...

The Model X involves removing a speaker grille and pulling a cable down and towards the front of the car:

https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/modelx/en_us/GUID-AAD769C...

In the Model 3 you have to know to pry up a piece of molding in a lower pocket of the door before manipulating a cable:

https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/model3/en_us/GUID-A7A60DC...

Model Y is like 3 except some of them do not have a manual release for rear-passengers, and those that do involve another step to pull up a mat from the bottom of the door-pocket:

https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/modely/en_us/GUID-AAD769C...

I was t-boned in a new model s (with yoke) and there wasn't any release like the manual said. Dunno if the carpet was just covering it and someone skipped that step but even the folks at the shop couldn't figure how to open them. Same goes with releasing the rear seats forward, if you don't have power they wont go down and of course the emergency escape latch in the trunk is basically impossible to get to unless you're already in the trunk area.

Move along folks, nothing to see here.

Tesla driver assist is just fine, thanks. Tesla surely followed all relevant software best practices, like MISRA, ISO-26262, etc and is in no way liable for poorly designed software that has been enabling fully self-driving vehicles since 2015 as was promised by the CEO.

This has nothing to do with driver assist as far as I can tell? It was a drunk driver that had her foot on the gas the whole time and made no attempt to brake.

This is burying the other end of the lede: the suit is about someone who died because the car caught fire and their door couldn't be opened.

So it could be seen as an engineering shortcoming, even though the cause was someone driving drunk

Can't we sue the people who ran safety tests and regulations on the car to let it get on the road like that? Or the onus is on Tesla and this was a freak accident (manufactured wrong) they should have caught after design?

In this case, my guess is that door openings aren't regulated (unlike security belts), so it's on Tesla to design their car the sane way.

lets all do the popular thing and judge Tesla’s software reliability by a headline and the opinion of someone on the internet

Long live the popular thing /s

Let's all just dismiss any criticism of Tesla's products and services by framing it as being specious because internet points.

Remember to do the right thing and take the bullet for the massive corporation.

> Vox Populi, Vox Dei

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1593769469741932544

It’s a little confusing, but this incident is not about self driving or software (unless the latching system is software) If anything it’s probably about the latching system or how vulnerable it is to catching fire.

We may never know the truth but I’m not sure what Tesla is at fault here for or why they would settle. Twice the legal limit for alcohol (alleged) by the driver is very bad for the plaintiff.

> We may never know the truth

That's the point. They're trying to hide something.

Sounds like that could be potentially true. Hopefully it has been fixed as that was an older version of the car.

Did you not read the article? They included info about an old case for background but this was about the Apple engineer who in 2018 was killed when his Tesla drove itself off the edge of a freeway and into a barrier at 71 mph.

I did read this article, which is what I was commenting on. “This incident” . The article was not about the previous case even though it was referenced.

That case was settled in April[1]. TFA is about the passenger in the 2016 crash

[1]https://www.ttnews.com/articles/tesla-settles-suit-autopilot

> propensity of the vehicle to catch fire, as well as the defective design of the door latch system entrapping him in the vehicle

sounds like theres something that tesla would not like being in news headlines if the case went to trial.

Mounting legal troubles, slowly bleeding market share, inferior “asd”, layoffs at all levels.

This company is a joke

They have the best self driving of any company in the world. What other car can you buy and send off to work as a robotaxi on your behalf? That is truly incredible and I never hear anyone talking about it.

Google has the best self driving in the world with Waymo and I don't think it's even close.

Not relevant since I can buy a Tesla but can’t buy a Waymo car.

It really is relevant when the claim was >They have the best self driving of any company in the world.

Lol. I know Musk eventually did produce FSD (for America), but the unmanned robotaxi thing just seems to have so many fundamental problems I can't imagine it ever working (with people's owned cars, as opposed to the Waymo model)

> Musk eventually did produce FSD (for America)

... on certain roads, and with good quality road markings, and in certain weather and seasons, and for some, but not most or all, traffic conditions...

You never hear anyone talking about it because it's not yet possible to send a Tesla off to work as a robotaxi on your behalf. It will be incredible if/when they're able to do that, assuming they're able to do it without any major incidents. And people will be talking about it endlessly, and rightfully so, once/if it comes to pass. I sure hope it happens because I'd be stoked to ride in one.

My apologies. I swear I saw Elon Musk give a talk where he said it was possible. Maybe I'm mixing him up with someone else.

Elon gives a lot of talks where people come away with false impressions.

You serious? They’re the most dominant electric vehicle company in the US.

>It also said police reports revealed that Speckman was found to be driving with a blood alcohol level more than twice the legal limit.

Driving under the influence, what more is there to say?

From the rest of the comments here it's the Musk was ultimately at fault regardless of anything else.

Nah: If anybody was actually holding Musk "ultimately at fault regardless of anything else", we wouldn't be talking about settling a product-safety lawsuit, but instead about a criminal trial for manslaughter.

Since that's not the case--and I don't think anyone has even suggested it needs to be--we can safely infer that there's already a high degree of nuance and splitting of different levels and layers of responsibility going on.

At the end of the day, "operator error"--even drunken operator error--is not enough to automatically negate all safety flaws.

Lol... I love it. Blame the company for a person drunken driving

That having impaired drivers does not absolve you of liability for unintended acceleration.

Is it possible to know the truth, for that?

> Tesla maintains there was nothing wrong with the car. It said the data event recorder showed that Speckman kept her foot on the accelerator pedal before the crash and never attempted to brake.

The family settling could seen as support for this claim. If it really did accelerate randomly, that seems like more of an NHTSA (or whoever) sort of thing more than something that could be settled.

This wasn't an unintended acceleration case or a driver assistance case. The case is entirely about the car catching fire and being impossible to escape.

The impaired driver was the one causing the unintended acceleration.

That wasn't what the case was about. It was about the propensity of the car to catch on fire and faulty door latch design that prevented the passenger who survived the impact from getting out.

Exactly. If he hadn’t been under the influence then the door latch system wouldn’t have had a defective design

>The suit blamed the “propensity of the vehicle to catch fire, as well as the defective design of the door latch system entrapping him in the vehicle.”

And if he had just been a passenger and the driver was sober?

Not parent-poster, but I did a bit more digging since (the linked article is terribly incomplete) and found out that not only did the driver also die, but the passenger was also tested (posthumously?) as being over the legal BAC limit.

[0] https://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2017/02/08/tesla-m...

> If he hadn’t been under the influence then the door latch system wouldn’t have had a defective design

So... Poe's Law here. I can't tell if this is a sarcastic comment pointing out that a defective design remains defective even if someone is drunk, or whether this is a serious comment implying it wasn't really defective in normal circumstances.

In any case, the person who was trapped-and-died was the passenger, and we don't know if or how-much they were drunk.

The driver survived... or else they're making a lawsuit from beyond the grave.

Correction since I can't edit: Both driver and passenger died and the plaintiff(s) do not include the driver. That said, I blame this on the linked-article being crap: Despite discussing the passenger's death, it never says any other person in the car died, which normally means they survived.

Instead, the driver died on the scene and the passenger later in a hospital [0]. More digging shows driver and passenger were (probably posthumously) tested at 0.21 and 0.17 BAC respectively. [1]

[0] https://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2016/11/03/2-kille...

[1] https://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2017/02/08/tesla-m...

I wonder how many of these suits they will have to settle (and how many people will die/get injuried in the process) just for them to be able to avoid judgments being used against them in their other procedure for falsely advertising their car as FSD (and charging more specifically for it).

Man. It feels like yesterday that everyone wanted a Tesla. Now it is almost a toxic brand.

Ive never seen a company do this so incredibly quickly.

Everyone still wants a Tesla. I have two friends who each purchased one in the last couple months.

I don’t!

If everyone still wanted a Tesla how does that explain the price cuts recently? That goes against typical market dynamics.

All cars are cutting prices. It’s a correction from Covid.

You couldn't pay me to buy that shit. There are other electric options that make more sense.

Given that Tesla has happily gone to all sorts of lengths, and held press conferences to throw drivers under the bus in previous fatal collisions (calling out, misleadingly, telemetry - "the vehicle was telling the driver to pay attention", yeah, once, eighteen minutes before this collision)...

... one has to wonder why they're so keen that this one doesn't go to trial.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com