A federal judge in New York has dismissed a lawsuit claiming a malfunctioning Tesla touchscreen contributed to a crash, ruling that the driver failed to present expert evidence showing the alleged defect caused or worsened the accident.
U.S. District Judge Nelson Román granted summary judgment to Tesla Inc. on Monday in a case brought by Robyn Wilson Wolf, who alleged that the touchscreen in her Tesla Model 3 froze and went black as her vehicle hydroplaned in icy conditions, preventing alerts from sounding and contributing to a collision with a highway divider.
Tesla argued that even if the touchscreen malfunctioned, the driver retained full control over steering, braking, and acceleration. Wilson Wolf countered that the loss of secondary features, including alerts, played a role in the crash. The court, however, found that she failed to support those claims with the necessary expert testimony.
“Where, as here, the claim turns on the alleged malfunction of complex vehicle software and integrated electronic systems, expert testimony is generally required to establish both defect and causation,” Judge Román wrote. He added that such issues are beyond the understanding of an ordinary juror and cannot be proven through speculation or lay observations.
The judge noted that Tesla presented expert evidence stating that a touchscreen failure would not impair the vehicle’s primary driving functions. Without expert testimony linking the alleged malfunction to a loss of vehicle control, the court said the plaintiff could not establish either a manufacturing defect or proximate cause.
Judge Román also rejected Wilson Wolf’s design defect and failure to warn claims, finding that she did not identify any expert capable of evaluating the touchscreen’s design, potential safety tradeoffs, or feasible alternative designs.
“Without such testimony, plaintiff cannot establish that the design was not reasonably safe under the risk utility framework or that any alleged design feature caused the accident,” the judge said.
The court further ruled that Wilson Wolf failed to rule out other plausible causes of the crash, including adverse weather, hydroplaning, and road conditions, as required under New York’s circumstantial defect doctrine.
“Plaintiff offers no expert testimony whatsoever, and no other competent evidence, excluding these alternative causes,” the order states. “Her failure to do so is dispositive.”
Attorneys for the parties did not respond to requests for comment.
Wilson Wolf is represented by Cornelius Redmond of Redmond Law PLLC. Tesla is represented by Suzanne Swaner of Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP and Peter J. Fazio of Aaronson Rappaport Feinstein and Deutsch LLP.
The case is Wilson Wolf v. Tesla Vehicles, case number 7:22 cv 10066, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
