Although Elon Musk was not present in the Miami courtroom, his presence loomed over the jury selection for a landmark federal trial against Tesla. The case stems from a 2019 fatal crash involving a Tesla Model S in Autopilot mode, which killed a pedestrian and injured another.
Prospective jurors expressed difficulty remaining impartial due to their views on Musk, with some citing his public persona and the company’s ethics. One juror openly admitted, “Anything that involves Elon Musk is very hard for me.” This highlighted the challenge of separating Musk’s identity from Tesla in a high-profile trial.
Musk’s Political Ties and Tesla’s Autopilot Safety Under Scrutiny in Landmark Trial
The trial takes place in the shadow of Musk’s heightened public profile, shaped by his previous advisory role under President Trump and the controversial Department of Government Efficiency. His dramatic fallout with Trump over tax and spending reforms has only increased media scrutiny, making impartiality difficult for some jurors.
Tesla’s legal team acknowledged this influence, stating, “It’s hard to hear the name Elon Musk and not have a view, positive or negative,” while attempting to refocus jurors on the specific facts of the case.
Tesla Faces Landmark Trial Over Fatal Autopilot Crash as Jurors Grapple With Elon Musk’s InfluenceThis civil lawsuit marks the first fatal-crash-related trial involving Tesla’s Autopilot system. The plaintiffs—relatives of Naibel Benavides, who was killed, and her boyfriend Dillon Angulo, who was seriously injured—argue that Tesla’s Autopilot was defective and unsafe.
Although the driver, George McGee, is not a defendant after settling with the plaintiffs, the case raises broader concerns about the safety of Tesla’s semi-autonomous systems. Tesla’s Autopilot is standard in all new vehicles, with a more advanced Full Self-Driving (Supervised) option offered as a premium feature.
Tesla Blames Driver, Plaintiffs Cite Autopilot Failures in High-Stakes Safety Lawsuit
During opening statements, the plaintiffs’ attorney argued that Tesla ignored repeated safety warnings and placed innovation above human safety. The attorney described Tesla’s role as “setting the stage” for the tragedy, while also blaming the driver for being distracted and reckless. However, the focus remained on Tesla’s promotion of its vehicles as being safer than humans and Musk’s statements about “superhuman” sensors, which allegedly created a false sense of security for drivers relying on the Autopilot system.
In its defense, Tesla denied that Autopilot was responsible for the crash, pointing instead to the driver’s distracted behavior as the root cause. Tesla emphasized that the driver was searching for a dropped phone and overriding the vehicle’s system at the time of the incident. The company argued that no technology in 2019 could have prevented such an accident.
This case will test public and legal perceptions of responsibility in semi-autonomous vehicle operations and could set a precedent for the growing number of lawsuits involving Tesla’s driver-assistance systems.
