FOLLOW US

A federal judge in Florida has refused to dismantle a staggering jury award against Tesla, ruling that the evidence presented at trial “more than supports” the conclusion that the company’s Autopilot system played a role in a deadly 2019 crash.

In a sharply worded order Friday, U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom denied Tesla’s request for judgment as a matter of law or, alternatively, a new trial. The case stems from a crash in Key Largo that killed 22-year-old Naibel Benavides Leon.

The Tesla $243M Autopilot Verdict now remains intact — a courtroom reckoning that echoes far beyond a single stretch of Florida highway.

Judge: Arguments Already Rejected

Judge Bloom described Tesla’s motion as a replay of arguments previously raised and dismissed, both during trial and in summary judgment briefings.

“The grounds for relief that Tesla relies upon are virtually the same” as those already considered and rejected, Bloom wrote, adding that the automaker presented no new controlling law or persuasive argument that would justify overturning the jury’s findings.

Her ruling effectively cements the August verdict delivered by a Miami jury after a three-week trial.

Crash on Card Sound Road

The collision occurred April 25, 2019, on Card Sound Road in Key Largo. Jurors found that Autopilot in George Brian McGee’s 2019 Tesla Model S contributed to the crash.

McGee, driving from his Boca Raton office to his home in Key Largo, testified that he dropped his phone and glanced down to retrieve it, unaware he was approaching a T-intersection. He sped past a stop sign and slammed into a parked Chevrolet Tahoe. Benavides, who was standing beside the SUV with her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo, was killed. Angulo, then 26, was injured.

McGee had engaged Autopilot, but moments before impact he pressed the accelerator to exceed the speed limit. That action triggered a message indicating cruise control would not brake.

The jury apportioned fault: 67% to McGee and 33% to Tesla.

Breaking Down the Damages

Jurors initially awarded $59 million in compensatory damages to Benavides’ parents and $70 million to Angulo. After adjusting for comparative fault, the compensatory total was reduced to $42.57 million.

The panel also imposed $200 million in punitive damages against Tesla — bringing the total judgment to $243 million.

In post-trial filings, Tesla argued the compensatory damages were excessive and surpassed what plaintiffs had requested. The company also contended that punitive damages were improper because its conduct did not meet Florida’s threshold for “egregious wrongdoing.” Additionally, Tesla maintained that state law caps punitive damages at three times compensatory damages after reductions for comparative fault.

Judge Bloom rejected each argument and declined to disturb any portion of the award.

Allegations of Overhype and Design Flaws

Throughout the trial, Benavides’ family and Angulo argued Autopilot was defectively designed. They contended Tesla permitted drivers to activate the system on roads for which it was not intended, including Card Sound Road, and failed to adequately monitor whether drivers were paying attention.

They also argued Tesla — and CEO Elon Musk — overstated Autopilot’s capabilities despite known vulnerabilities, “setting the stage” for the fatal crash.

Plaintiffs’ attorney Brett Schreiber said the ruling was no surprise.

“Tesla’s arguments were simply an attempt to relitigate the court’s pretrial rulings,” Schreiber said, adding that his team intends to continue pursuing accountability in courts nationwide.

Legal Teams

The plaintiffs are represented by Adam T. Boumel and Todd Poses of Poses Boumel; Brett Schreiber, Satyasrinivas M. Hanumadass and Carmela S. Birnbaum of Singleton Schreiber LLP; and Douglas F. Eaton of Eaton & Wolk PL.

Tesla’s counsel includes Wendy F. Lumish, Whitney V. Cruz, Thomas P. Branigan, Drew P. Branigan and Joel Smith of Bowman and Brooke LLP; Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Julian W. Poon, Miguel A. Estrada and Thomas H. Dupree Jr. of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP; and Paul D. Clement of Clement & Murphy PLLC.

As autonomous technology races forward, the courtroom battle underscores a stark reminder: innovation may move at high speed, but accountability follows close behind.