Jul 11, 2016
calisnow Looks like speculation that Tesla has already settled with Mr. Brown's family can be put to rest:
"The family of Joshua Brown, the Tesla enthusiast who was killed in a car crash last month, has hired a prominent personal injury law firm. Jack Landskroner, who has been hired by the family, says it hasn�t been determined whether Brown�s family may file a lawsuit based on the accident, but he says his firm is looking into �anything and everything� related to the fatal crash. Landskroner says he and other lawyers at his firm, Landskroner Grieco Merriman, have been contacted by other drivers who have been involved in accidents while using Tesla�s autopilot feature, the car manufacturer�s semi-autonomous mode that Brown was reportedly using at the time of the crash. Landskroner said that he and his firm were carefully investigating each incident."
"Landskroner Grieco Merriman, based in Cleveland, specializes in personal injury and product liability cases. Last October, the firm brought a class action lawsuit against Cleveland Public Power, alleging that the utility defrauded about 80,000 customers out of millions by charging a hidden monthly fee."
"Landskroner also said that his firm has sued both trucking companies and car manufacturers in a number of cases."
Tesla Autopilot Crash Victim�s Family Has Hired a Personal Injury Lawyer�
Jul 11, 2016
Stoneymonster This was inevitable.�
Jul 11, 2016
apacheguy I just don't get this. How can Tesla be responsible? The driver is ultimately responsible for the safety of all passengers especially when an enormous truck pulls in front. It doesn't matter if autopilot did or didn't see it. The driver, had he been paying attention, should have taken immediate evasive action.�
Jul 11, 2016
mikeash Tesla's liability would ultimately be decided by twelve people not smart enough to get out of jury duty, that's how. Of course, I'm sure they never plan on it getting that far, rather they intend to use the threat of legal action to get Tesla to settle out of court. Many companies will just hand over some cash rather than endure litigation, even if they have a good case. I have a feeling Tesla is not going to act that way though.�
Jul 11, 2016
James Anders Surprised it took this long. Legal arguments aren't going to take into account the overall stats of AP being safer.�
Jul 11, 2016
jeffro01 Ugh... Instead of taking responsibility for ones actions, gotta call the lawyers...
Jeff
EDIT: Oh and the supposed "others" is going to get real interesting once the "others" realize that Tesla has logs of everything...�
Jul 11, 2016
Alketi I'm willing to bet that the lawyers called them. Instead of chasing ambulances like the old days, now they're scouring social media or reading Fortune magazine.
But yes, utterly inevitable. We can't have anything nice in the world without someone trying to profit off its destruction.�
Jul 11, 2016
RogerHScott Reminds me of the old saying "If you hang raw meat from your doorknob don't be surprised to find jackals on your porch"
�
Jul 11, 2016
omarsultan For better or for worse, its is going to be court cases like these that can be helpful (or fatal).
I would be surprised if Tesla settles this lawsuit--I think they need to be fully exonerated, otherwise they will continue to open to more FUD attacks down the road.
- The NHTSA and NTSB investigations can provide regulatory air cover for AP (or make it unusable it)
- A lawsuit against a state's auto dealer association or something at the federal level can clear the way for direct sales model (or further enshrine it)
- Winning a product liability case like this moves the onus back on the driver to not do stupid things (and losing it will unleash the legal kraken)
I would be curious to see if Tesla pursues libel/slander claims against any folks to help tamp down the enthusiasm for blaming AP for everything.�
Jul 11, 2016
Skotty Jury duty is a responsibility and a privilege that no one should try to get out of without good reason. Furthermore, smart people should be further motivated to serve out of the realization that it is better for everyone if smart people serve on juries.
If the unfortunate person involved in this incident was as big a fan as I've seen mentioned, his family should be careful not to tread on his dreams. No party was being bad here. Sometimes accidents happen. No one will gain from a lawsuit over this.�
Jul 11, 2016
stopcrazypp I was guessing when this would happen. Even if it wasn't initiated by the family, lawyers usually will jump on cases like this where there is a very clear well-moneyed target. Civil cases have much lower standards of evidence than criminal cases.
Like others mentioned, I would lean on believing Tesla might not want to settle this case because of the implications of doing so.�
Jul 11, 2016
Stoneymonster Unlikely. Libel and slander cases in the US have a pretty high bar to clear and would only draw more interest to the issue (Streisand effect).�
Jul 11, 2016
mikeash I agree fully, but the reality is that most people see it as a burden, and those who are also smart will easily find ways to get out of it. There is also the aspect that lawyers tend to look for qualities in jurors which can exclude smarter people, so it doesn't even have to be intentional.
Basically, just because a jury decides something doesn't mean it's so, but it does determine who gets to pay.�
Jul 11, 2016
RogerHScott I don't think we have enough facts to conclude that. Based on what I've heard, it seems very likely that the Tesla driver was being
reckless. Think of the impact of this on his family and on the truck driver. Is recklessly causing that much harm in no way "bad"?
A distant second those concerns is the profoundly negative impact all of this is likely to have on the dream of autonomous EVs that
he is said to have cared so much about. I don't want to come across as unsympathetic to Joshua Brown, but I just don't buy the
argument that as long as you personally pay the ultimate price for your behavior it doesn't matter how much "collateral damage" it does.�
Jul 11, 2016
msnow ^^^ this�
Jul 11, 2016
omarsultan Probably right. I am not sure you have to worry about the Streisand Effect here, since Tesla is already under a microscope, but there is something to be said for not needlessly feeding the news/hype cycle.�
Jul 11, 2016
182RG Proof that cockroaches can pass the bar exam.....�
Jul 11, 2016
182RG America. Where tort law provides people too stupid to use good judgement the ability to blame and financially punish another party.�
Jul 11, 2016
cpa My best friend for the past 55 years is a lawyer. He is the litigation counsel for a large public utility. About eight years ago there was a horrible accident involving an explosion of a newly-installed natural gas pipeline in some new construction. No one was killed, fortunately; however, several plumbers were injured in the explosion and incurred some medical bills. These were union plumbers with up to 25 years experience. The utility offered to pay their medical expenses. This was not satisfactory to them or to the plaintiff lawyers they hired.
So, they sued for millions and millions. The suit went to trial. My friend does not defend cases in court but coordinates with trial counsel and develops strategy. Anyway, the jury had to endure days and days of company policies and procedures regarding the "pickling" of stainless steel natural gas pipelines. Natural gas is odorless, so it is treated with various sulfur compounds like mercaptan to give it that distinctive smell. Virgin stainless steel pipe has a way of absorbing these sulfuric compounds until the metal surface is saturated, hence the pickling procedures. He said the amount of technical data and science provided the jury was staggering.
Anyway, the jury returned a near unanimous verdict for the plaintiffs. My friend said that trial counsel could see that she was losing the jury with all the defense testimony to support that there was no negligence or other tortious act by the utility.
So, the utility appealed the jury verdict. The appeals court unanimously tossed the jury verdict, saying that the verdict was not supported by the facts.
This story more or less validates the theory that civil matters that are technical in nature or have many subtle differences frequently lose the jury. They do not weigh the evidence and facts. They distill the trial down to who is likeable more--some injured plumbers or a faceless public utility with billions in the bank. And we all know who will win in these situations every time.�
Jul 11, 2016
hacer It seems reasonable to me for the Brown family to sue the Trucker and the trucking company.�
Jul 11, 2016
msnow It seems reasonable to me that they would sue everyone they possibly could sue and I'm surprised, shocked really, that so many of you didn't expect this.�
Jul 11, 2016
RogerHScott Rest assured that every entity within a 100-mile radius with a nickle of assets will be sued. Call it "legal carpet bombing"�
Jul 11, 2016
msnow Better increase you radius, Tesla is a couple thousand miles from them.�
Jul 11, 2016
yo mama I really hate lawyers because I naturally distrust any profession that would have me as a member.�
Jul 11, 2016
brkaus Here I was expecting the punchline - the plumbers were found to have caused the explosion and liable for everything.�
Jul 11, 2016
omarsultan Who gets named in the lawsuit has little to do with who might be at fault and everything to do with who has the deepest pockets. #Murica�
Jul 11, 2016
RogerHScott I didn't say those were the only criteria...�
Jul 11, 2016
Max* Expected? Yes
Reasonable? No�
Jul 11, 2016
msnow I think a reasonable person would conclude that the family would sue everyone and their mother.
*changing subject slightly* Consider the optics of fighting in court a Navy Seal war veteran and noted Teala supporter. It's a tough call because even though they can settle without assuming liability it opens the door if they settle.�
Jul 11, 2016
Max* I tried to use less words, but my point was that, yes, I expected the parents to sue (Expected? Yes). A reasonable person would expect the parents to sue. But that doesn't make it reasonable to sue (Reasonable? No).�
Jul 11, 2016
msnow Got it, thanks.�
Jul 11, 2016
Az_Rael My experience having served on two juries is that being an engineer may increase your odds of being picked. I was called for 3 jury duty sessions over the years while I lived in Texas and ended up getting picked on 2 of the cases. (One civil and one criminal). Both times I was pretty far down in the jury pool, so they had to weed through several folks to get to me.
Sure, I could have probably gotten out of the service, but I do consider it part of my civic duty and found the experience worthwile of my time for both occasions.�
Jul 11, 2016
calisnow Years ago I owned an exotic car rental company. One of my clients drove a 6 figure Italian sports car in front of a bus and got hit. An old lady on the bus fell down and broke her hip - everyone got named in her lawsuit - including me.
To my great consternation my insurance company settled with her rather than fight it.�
Jul 11, 2016
RogerHScott Insurance companies are trying to win wars, not battles. Sort of like long ago when if your idiot son got drunk and killed someone in the next village everyone understood that it was better to give that village a couple of your cows (i.e., pay them off) than to have them
go to war with you in the name of "justice".�
Jul 11, 2016
cpa Actually, they did cause the explosion. They were welding pipes together, and a spark ignited the gas. The appellate court found that the 20+year experienced plumbers should have known that pickling the new pipes takes several days. The plumbers did not check first to see if another plumber had turned off the gas at the main, as he knew they were going to be welding. And, if I recall correctly, commercial plumbers who work with new gas lines have a device to measure gas concentrations before they light up a smoke or do some welding. They failed to use it in this instance.�
Jul 11, 2016
Lyon This is a pretty complex case involving (potentially) three different negligent actors. The truck driver was likely negligent, the driver of the Tesla was likely negligent and it's possible that Tesla was negligent. I know some of the facts of this case but certainly not all of them. Florida is pure comparative responsibility state (Comparative responsibility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) so bringing in all the potentially negligent actors is important. Due process requires that a person or corporation must be a party to a claim to be liable for damages from that claim.
Theories of negligence related to each party:
- Truck driver: turned left across two lanes of traffic to make a turn, probably didn't look adequately?
Mr. Brown:
- Failed to adequately monitor his surroundings while driving? Was he watching a movie and not paying attention?
Tesla: (these are only possibilities, I'm not advocating for any of them)
- Product liability:
- Failure to warn. Was the warning that the driver must always pay attention, even when autopilot is engaged, sufficient?
- Design defect. Is there an element of the AP system that is defective in its design. This is where they would look at, and balance, the relative utility of AP versus the cost of a "perfect system."
- Manufacturing defect. If the system is not defective in its design, was it made incorrectly in some way? Unlikely given that we have video evidence of the system working in the past and the car is likely too badly damaged to be usable for evidence.
?
The civil liability system is the alternative to having the state dictate the outcome in these types of situations (the other option is the Hatfields and McCoys). Individual juries decide fault on a case-by-case basis because we haven't managed to come up with a better system.�
Jul 11, 2016
msnow It sounds like you're an attorney (or play one on TV)�
Jul 11, 2016
Lyon Didn't hide that well, did I?
Usually the outcomes of government agency investigations can be persuasive to a jury but they aren't dispositive for the issue being raised. Put another way, they're just more evidence... but they can be really good evidence if they support your position.
Another thing to be aware of is that, to the extent that such a report reaches a conclusion that's the same as the jury is supposed to decide (e.g. who is at fault) they may not be admissible. The reports may also be inadmissible hearsay. They're very likely hearsay but might fall under an exception.�
Jul 11, 2016
evjc How true.
The basic truth is the lawyers are looking for an easy payday and their actions are NOT based on any "injury" the family may have suffered.�
Jul 11, 2016
msnow Are you saying a family member (mother, father, wife, children, etc..) are not injured in some way by a fatality?�
Jul 11, 2016
McRat Do not participate in a Class Action suit in the US.
It's there to make the lawyers rich, and they really don't give a hoot about the plaintiffs.
Most are settled, and the attorney's write in "after xx days, any monies not claimed are to be retained by the plaintiff's legal team.
So it in is the lawyer's best interests to pay out as little as possible to each plaintiff, and to make it a serious PITA to collect.
nVidia was sued for notebook chipsets. The lawyers ended up with 90% of the settlement if my math is correct. If your $1600 notebook could not be repaired (they could not), you were to accept a Walmart Special. No touchscreen, less RAM, less HDD, slower chip, etc. Only the screen size was comparable. If you didn't like it? Too bad.�
Jul 11, 2016
SR22pilot Following lawsuits involving airplane crashes I have been shocked at the misinformation that is allowed to stand. A paid consultant basically lies and the jury buys it. In one case the expert said that just flying an approach kept you IFR current and that you didn't have to do any holds. That is blatantly wrong. In one case an instrument that was deemed by the NTSB to have been functioning properly during the accident was still found at fault. The result was that the manufacturer went bankrupt.
I found the warnings in the Hyundai Genesis manual interesting. Among the cases where AEB may not work, Hyundai lists:
An unusual shape vehicle is ahead such as a trailer, special access vehicle or a truck with unique shaped cargo.?�
Jul 11, 2016
22522 Should Tesla open a gallery in East Texas?�
Jul 11, 2016
calisnow @golfingBuddha - did my reporting the news offend you?
�
Jul 11, 2016
golfingBuddha @calisnow
No no. Not at all! Just dislike the facts. ;-)�
Jul 11, 2016
RogerHScott I don't think that's what "dislike" is meant to convey. My understanding is it means you disapprove of the way someone
said something, not what they said. You meant to click the non-existent "disagree" button.�
Jul 11, 2016
calisnow Ahhhh, sorry. Yeah it's an ambiguous button.�
Jul 11, 2016
CarlitoDoc Time to short the stock??
But seriously, this is expected and necessary! Unfortunately legislation will be required to implement further advances in AP features,�
Jul 11, 2016
S'toon I had a fantastic lawyer once, until she retired. I really liked her. She called my dad's lawyers the kind of lawyers who give lawyers a bad name.�
Jul 11, 2016
S4WRXTTCS There are lot of things that make the navy seal look really bad.
There is his abysmal driving record. A ton of speeding tickets within the last 6 years.
The youtube video he posted of AP saving his butt actually documented his own bad driving where he had zero situational awareness.
An eyewitness claims he was going faster than 85mph in the 65mph zone.
The Harry Potter especially if the Harry Potter disk was in the dvd player.
I'm not sure how the lawyer can bring in other completely unrelated accidents into the mix. Some of the AP accidents have been because the user assumed it was on when it wasn't.
I don't see how suing Tesla is really the best course of action for the family. Plus he was a Tesla fan and it seems a bit odd for a family to sue something their son loved. Why betray their son unless he was without a doubt a victim of something? The family already expressed what seemed like clear knowledge of what it was.
To me the truck driver/company is the most likely target, but even with that I don't think they know the exact point where the truck driver started making the turn in relation to the Tesla. Plus trucks are so slow that they have to count on oncoming traffic to slow down for them or else they'd be waiting all day. What really matters is that the truck driver gave him ample room to do so. The truck driver can't be forced to wait for a completely distracted driver to go by.�
Jul 11, 2016
yo mama Like it or hate it, litigation often serves to shape and even modernize our legal landscape faster than if we waited for legislators to do their jobs. Even then, most legislators are only good at doing two things: (a) nothing; and (b) overreacting.�
Jul 11, 2016
calisnow I don't think it's clear the trial lawyer has concluded the best action is a lawsuit either. What the lawyer has done is go public to the press - that is a tactical move. What the lawyer's next move is - we'll see.
As for judging Joshua Brown's family and Monday morning quarterbacking how I, some random guy on the internet, believe they *should* feel - I'm not going to do that.
Attempting to define which actions amount to a "betrayal" of their son and his estate when you don't know their son and you don't know them either? You're not serious are you? How old are you man? Do you have a son? Have you had one killed in a car accident?
I love Tesla but I'm not going to judge how Mr. Brown's family should feel or how they should honor their son. That ain't my business.�
Jul 11, 2016
yo mama Most lawyers suck... and not just because they're parasites. The good ones are rare and tend to charge accordingly.�
Jul 11, 2016
golfingBuddha Anyone else notice the article was from Fortune? Not coincidental I don't think.
Also, by the lawyer statement it appears pretty clear that the truck driver is the one getting sued.
"On May 7, 2016, Joshua Brown (40) of Canton, Ohio, was killed in a motor vehicle crash in Williston, Florida, caused by a semi tractor-trailer which crossed a divided highway and caused the fatal collision with Josh�s Tesla. Josh was a master Explosive Ordinance Disposal (EOD) technician in the US Navy, an exceptional citizen, and a successful entrepreneur. He was a proud member of the Navy�s elite Naval Special Warfare Development Group (NSWDG). Most importantly, he was a loving son and brother."
Recent Verdicts, Cleveland OH Law Firm : Landskroner Grieco Merriman�
Jul 11, 2016
calisnow I dunno, the attorney statement seems pretty "purposely ambiguous" to me, with a clear attempt to avoid making the family look like litigious greed monsters. There could still be settlement talks going on behind the scene at this very moment.�
Jul 11, 2016
S4WRXTTCS Need I remind you that you're the one that posted about how the accident could be the best thing for Tesla. A lot of people saw that in poor taste. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and simply stated how I felt. I didn't chastise you for it.
This entire thread is all about speculation. We have no idea what's REALLY going on. The lawyers just seem to be gathering information, and going to the press is part of that process.
If my parents sued in a similar situation then I would feel betrayed by them. That they didn't understand that I knew perfectly what I was doing. That I read the manual, and that I contributed to discussions about it, etc. It's as simple as that, and considering the things I do it's highly likely that it will happen at some point. Some of us are just risk takers and we die doing what we love.
What I was really getting at was I doubted that Tesla was the one being targeted, and it was the truck driver that was.�
Jul 11, 2016
xav- Maybe but certainly not because of this AP thing�
Jul 11, 2016
RogerHScott Just this thread?�
Jul 11, 2016
MikeC That eyewitness report is contradicted by the police report that he was going 65 mph: mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/07/business/us-safety-agency-investigates-another-tesla-crash-involving-autopilot.html
They also reported that nothing was found to be playing in the wrecked car. So the version of events reported by the truck driver, who is at fault and being charged, doesn't seem to be accurate at all.
Unfortunately, that's the version that was printed first and so now many people are faulting a dead man, just because he's not around to defend himself against the lies of the person who killed him.�
Jul 11, 2016
clarkbariowa This guy was a Navy Seal. There is no way he was paying attention if this happened. He is wired to react to this exact situation.�
Jul 11, 2016
S4WRXTTCS Haha, on the Ars article today I said the entire Tesla experience was rooted in speculation.
The media speculates on self driving based off the Tesla Autopilot even though it's NOT self driving. Heck I would argue that the media perpetuates the myth that the Tesla is self driving more than Tesla does.
We speculate on every possible thing that happens.
Almost every thread is speculation on one thing or another.
It does make sense since we're used to changes. We know things will rapidly change so we tend to be on our toes.
Back a long time ago before my days the 911 was the car of the day much like Tesla is today. Back then it was involved in a lot of fatality accidents because the drivers didn't know how to use it. Sure there were warning, and lots of people talked about it but it didn't keep people from misusing it and messing up.
Nothing ever really changes. It's just the same thing all over again with a different company, and different technology.�
Jul 11, 2016
msnow It's sad to say but the "deep pockets" here are Tesla and they may settle this to avoid the bad press and possible bad result in court.�
Jul 11, 2016
S4WRXTTCS Keep in mind what I listed was just things that would come up in a lawsuit. That with each one of them there was a lot of conflicting information. Like the truck driver had his own history of infractions, and he had reasons to lie.
Outside of the lawsuit framing I don't care about any of those things. What I care about is the AEB, and that it didn't activate. Not only that, but AEB systems in lot of cars wouldn't catch this. If we want to be serious about saving lives across the board then we need better AEB systems.�
Jul 11, 2016
jdw Great comment on Ars Technica:
isparavance wrote:
As a TSLA shareholder, albeit with a tiny amount of stock, I think the SEC investigation is much more harmful to shareholders than the crash.
�
Jul 11, 2016
calisnow Fair enough - very good point. You got me there - sorry.�
Jul 11, 2016
msnow He could be right but there would not be an SEC investigation if there wasn't a crash.�
Jul 11, 2016
calisnow @msnow @Eclectic and any other attorneys - from a game theory perspective of both Joshua Brown's attorneys, and Tesla - is there a question here of when the best time to settle is - with respect to waiting for or not waiting for the outcome of these NTSB/NHTSA investigations?
It would seem to me that each side has something to lose or potentially gain depending on the findings of the investigations. So, depending on how risk averse each side is, these investigations might prompt them to quickly settle before the investigations are over - right? Or no?�
Jul 11, 2016
msnow I'm not an attorney (I just have a lot of experience at a senior level on risk, disclosures and materiality) but I can see both advantages and disadvantages to a settlement. The main disadvantage is it potentially sets a bad precedent for Tesla given their position on liability. The main advantage would be it limits the press exposure and saves legal costs. I also think that the findings from all of these investigations (SEC, NHTSA, NTSB) would be a factor in which way to go with this. In other words if Tesla is found not at fault or did nothing wrong by any of these agencies there is less incentive to settle.�
Jul 11, 2016
omarsultan From a corp comm perspective, settling creates challenges in that you are left constantly battling FUD and innuendo.�
Jul 11, 2016
calisnow Settlement could include strong gag clause where Brown's family and attorneys can't even admit they settled - right?�
Jul 11, 2016
stopcrazypp From the whole NDA debacle a while back, I doubt this will work very well.�
Jul 12, 2016
omarsultan I believe NDAs are par for the course in cases like this, so not sure that is as big an issue.
The problem with anything short of exoneration is that it creates a germination point for further FUD. If I were counter-marketing against Tesla for, say, a German marque, I would build a narrative about the quality and integrity of German engineering (VAG notwithstanding) vs the Silicon Valley newbies who played fast and lose with your family's safety and got busted. Add a snap tag line like "At [fill in a brand], safety is never a "beta". The official corp messaging would take the high ground and be nuance, but I would use proxies (news articles, bloggers, slanted survey results, regulatory and legislative actions, etc) to drive a more pointed message and to continue to amplify the FUD around Tesla technology.
Beyond that, I think many in the general public look at settling as a form of admitting guilt, like a plea bargain in a criminal case, so it effectively takes what should be a Tesla asset and turns it into a liability.�
Jul 12, 2016
msnow That makes sense but tactically you're leaving them with just one high risk option, fight and win. I know I'm sounding repetitive but we really need to wait and see the results of the various investigations. I could envision a set of facts that would dictate a completely different legal strategy so we will see.�
Jul 12, 2016
AUSinator Not to mention he hit almost the end of the trailer that a truck stared to accelerate from 0 crossing a almost freaking freeway - he had 1 million years time to react to avoid the collision. It would of been enough to slow down only 5mph Less than 5 secs before the accident to avoid the crash he was oblesly not looking straight ahead but on his Mobile phone or something like that. He loved, believed soo much and didn't understand what semi auto pilot was that he had a false sence of security. Conclusion his punishment was harsh for not understanding.�
Jul 12, 2016
thegruf I will not comment in detail on the particular case as I am not in possession of all the facts, however
Have to say that in the UK, if the driver is proven to be driving in excess of the speed limit, they are automatically culpable as they are driving illegally. Anything that happens as a consequence is entirely the fault of the driver, even if another vehicle acts unwisely/recklessly. (typically of course excessive speed reduces time/opportunity to react to a situation)
Somehow I don't think any court case will focus on this aspect and I don't know how absolute the US law is in this respect.
Had this situation occurred if the vehicle was driving at or within the speed limit, who knows what might have happened, the driver could have had time to take avoidance, the AP (or AEBS) may indeed have detected the obstacle.
And if there is the potential to hobble Tesla's excellent work on autopilot, where does it stop? There just have to have been accidents with cruise control engaged, never mind ACC. Ban cruise control? Actually ban cars altogether due to accidents, which are almost invariably due to the weakest link - the driver - messing up.�
Jul 12, 2016
lklundin Past performance would suggest that not all litigation in the US has merit, surely because the justice system often enough fails to favor what is 'right'.
I have to wonder how things would have gone if the fatality had been in Norway, the country where 'DVD Jon' was acquitted in a trial that was brought due to complains from USA's DVD Copy Control Association and Motion Picture Association.�
Jul 12, 2016
McRat At least in our our state, 2 things happen in such cases:
Shotgun litigation, and deep pockets. Shotgun is naming every possible defendant, and deep pockets is finding even a small amount of blame attributable to a rich entity.
Everybody and their dog gets named in the suit. Some idiot named me in a suit about property damage at a party 200 miles away. That was weird.
But Porsche was named in a suit for not putting stability control in their track car. And Porsche cut a check.
The facts?
The crash was on a closed course circuit at a 'track day'. A waiver to acknowledge the risks had no effect, so the track facility paid out too.
The other driver in involved violated track etiquette and he paid out as well.
It was a case of bad driving by rich folk who did not have the skills to playing with supercars. And Porsche had a piece of their arse chewed off for not having SC, which didn't even freakin' matter. Nearly everybody turns off SC when tracking their cars because it destroys the brakes and actually makes the cars more dangerous IMO. By the time you whip that mule hard enough to make it keep up, it bucks you off. SC can only protect you so much.
But Porsche, the track (owned by Penske), and in this case the other track driver all had lots of money available, so Cha-Ching.
Unless the the truck driver worked for a large trucking company or there is a lot of insurance in place, they are going after Tesla. Whether Tesla is or is not to blame has nothing to do with it. It's just how things work today.�
Jul 12, 2016
mikeash Woman who was driving while praying with her eyes closed hits house
Better add prayer to the list of things that need a class and a waiver.�
Jul 12, 2016
rogbmw Ummmm.......I don't really now where you are coming from on this. Living close to the accident scene, what happened was that a Semi truck made a quick illegal left hand turn directly in front of the Tesla driver. Many here do not think that autopilot, human intervention, or anything else would have altered the outcome. It is unfortunate that some seem to be jumping on the AP at fault bandwagon, but just ask yourself this....it a semi turned directly in front of you, and you were going say 55mph, and did not have any time to react (AP or no AP), what do you think would be the outcome.
As before, thoughts and prayers go out to the family.�
Jul 12, 2016
RDoc It's my understanding that, at least in Massachusetts, that's not the case. A vehicle turning across traffic has to yield the right of way in all cases and wait for a safe opportunity to cross. There's no provision for requiring on coming traffic to slow or stop. That's what "right of way" means.�
Jul 12, 2016
Max* Except that the people who think that are wrong.
The semi is a 40ton large slow vehicle, it's not a 2ton electric P90DL. The semi didn't just make a "quick" illegal left hand turn. The Tesla drove under the trailer portion, he didn't collide with the truck portion. A reasonable person paying attention would have swerved/braked/did something, instead of continuing to go straight when the semi is already blocking a portion of the lane.�
Jul 12, 2016
omarsultan Well, you're no fun...!�
Jul 12, 2016
omarsultan I don't disagree with you and frankly, I am not sure was the right choice here is for Tesla. I just wanted to play out a scenario so folks can see the flip side of the expediency a settlement.
Right now, Tesla's perception risks venturing into death-from-a-thousand-paper-cuts territory:
From a corp comm perspective, especially for a small company like Tesla, this is difficult since its a broad and diffuse front to fight. I could argue it makes sense to settle the suit, simply to have one less thing to worry about, but I could argue settling will invite copycat lawsuits and at the end of the day Tesla needs to win some of these battles to protect the brand.
- NHTSA investigation
- NTSB investigation
- SEC inquiry
- Fortune hunting for the next Enron story
- Generally crappy click-bait media reporting
- Civil suit
�
Jul 12, 2016
CuriousG That could have been a potential Darwin Award which would be ironic given the circumstances to why she crashed.�
Jul 12, 2016
lklundin OK, I did.
From the moment the (front of the) semi started obstructing the Tesla's right of way and until the semi had turned 90 degrees and obstructed the Tesla's right of way with its trailer part, there must have been some amount of time for the Tesla driver to react.
Since it is generally better to impact at a lower speed, I would in that terrible situation hope that I would be alert and then immediately press the brake with all my force, while holding the steering wheel firmly with both hands. (A driver should never drive faster than being ready to apply the brakes with their full force). Once it becomes apparent that breaking is insufficient to avoid a collision, I would steer to minimize the damage, e.g. aiming for the wheels of the trailer. One night while going at top speed on the Autobahn, I managed to squeeze past a stalled vehicle (with all its lights out), I was still going at 200 km/h the moment I was past it with less than 1/2 m to spare (I had only the left 2/3 of the leftmost lane, plus the wide version of the white stripe and a few more centimeters before the guard rail on my left, the last thing I remember before zipping past the car was seeing a bit of grass under the guard rail. That was actually terrifying). On another occasion while going 60 km/h in snow I managed to avoid totaling my car, by more or less getting it onto a dirt road away from another, heavy obstruction.
In a Model S a collision with the wheels of a trailer should be survivable even at speeds a bit above the 64 km/h (40 mph), that the crash test uses. In most cars a collision with a non-movable object at 100 km/h (about 60mph) is fatal, the G-force will for example rip the aorta away from the heart. So they can't make the crash test at a much higher speed. So you really want to reduce your speed even if a collision is unavoidable.�
Jul 12, 2016
AmpedRealtor Tesla confirms another Autopilot accident�
Jul 12, 2016
Max* The wheel fell off, queue Keef!�
Jul 12, 2016
AmpedRealtor That, too lol�
Jul 12, 2016
Max* Also, to be fair the headline is clickbait (yes, I know you have no control over it).
�
Jul 12, 2016
stopcrazypp Actually we don't know the circumstances to make a statement like that. From the trucker's various statements to the media, the following scenario is equally possible:
The driver saw the truck starting to make the turn and moved over to the right lane to try to pass in front of the truck.
The trucker said he saw the car moving from the left lane to the right lane. He also said he saw the car coming so he decided to floor it instead of stopping to let it pass (although in other statements he said he didn't see the car since it was going at high speed).�
Jul 12, 2016
Max* We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I feel like we've been through this before, upthread, but here we go again.
I know the basic geometry of a truck. It doesn't instantly pop into the middle of the roadway, that takes time.
The average human reaction time is 250ms. At 80mph, he'd need to be ~30 feet away from the truck to hit the brakes and have the brake engagement register in the car. Tesla said the driver did NOT engage the brakes. That means that either the truck moved 30 feet in less than 250ms (see below) or the driver was not paying attention/incapacitated.
Below: Let's assume the truck and cab are 60 feet, and the car hit him about 1/2 way (based on the crime scene image, that's fairly valid), so the truck moved 30feet. There is no way a truck, from a rolling start, can move 30 feet at the same speed as a car traveling at 80mph.�
Jul 12, 2016
mikeash Why would you drive at 60MPH on Autopilot with your hands off the wheel on a winding canyon road with no shoulder?!?! Freakin' idiot.�
Jul 12, 2016
mikeash That's for reacting to things you're already anticipating and know how to respond to. For driving, the relevant time includes the time needed to recognize what's happening and decide on a response. The total time is typically more like one second, and often more (thus the common advice to use a two-second following distance, or more).�
Jul 12, 2016
Max* Fine, I'll give you that, but still doesn't change my conclusion.
I don't see how a truck can move 30 feet in the time a vehicle traveling at 80mph can move 120 feet.�
Jul 12, 2016
Max* Let's say he was rolling at 10mph when he started, 30 feet = 2seconds, that's still well above reaction time.
I stand by my comment. There's no way the truck just happened to get in the middle of the road so fast that an attentive driver would not have had time to react and hit the *middle* of the truck without registering a brake press.�
Jul 12, 2016
golfingBuddha FLORIDA STATUTE:
316.122?Vehicle turning left.�The driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left within an intersection or into an alley, private road, or driveway shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction, or vehicles lawfully passing on the left of the turning vehicle, which is within the intersection or so close thereto as to constitute an immediate hazard. A violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a moving violation as provided in chapter 318.�
Jul 12, 2016
DrManhattan It will be interesting to see if Tesla and the truck driver team up on this one. Tesla should hope for evidence of not paying attention as to deflect blame from autopilot.�
Jul 12, 2016
golfingBuddha The problem is you are only considering the geometry of the truck and the speed of the cars. Where you are incredibly mistaken (scarily so) is that you are not considering the geometry of the road, the physics and physiology of human vision and perception, the actual/factual circumstances of the intersection in question, and MANY other factors.
For example, given the image below. What is the 'geometry' involved?
![[?IMG]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/M%C3%BCller-Lyer_illusion.svg/200px-M%C3%BCller-Lyer_illusion.svg.png)
�
Jul 12, 2016
Johan I'm assuming Tesla will do everything in their power to stay out of any potential court case. IMO the proper legal approach, should the family's attorneys try to sie Tesla, would be to push the argument that if they're not also suing the company who painted the trailer white, the contractor who laid the pavement, the department who designed the road, the tire manufacturer of the tires on Brown's car etc. then there's little point in suing Tesla. Just as it is not normal to sue any other car manufacturer in car collisions, except when there is a big probability of either a manufacturing or design defect being either directly responsible for the accident or contributing in a meaningful way.
I agree with Max above that, assuming the facts as reported are correct; no braking and hemce passing under the semi trailer at cruising speed, then that is strong evidence to the fact that the driver was neither not paying attention or for some other less probable reason not reacting to the trailer moving at a low speed�
Jul 12, 2016
Max* @golfingBuddha I get it, there are other variables. But an attentive driver would have time to react before the truck drove halfway into the roadway, so for the people who state that there is nothing that could have been done because the truck went poof, and behind a cloud of smoke and optical illusions just appeared in the middle of the roadway, not giving the operator enough time to swerve/hit the brakes/do anything are disillusion.
Feel free to dislike this post too, but showing optical illusions and saying "you're missing a bunch of variables" is not proving that it can actually happen.
I'm done arguing this point*.
*Until it comes back in a few pages again as a brand new idea.�
Jul 12, 2016
RogerHScott Isn't the answer to this always the same: because you can?
During a long drive over the weekend I was thinking about ways of making auto-steer safer: every time it has to remind you to put
your hands on the wheel it knocks 5mph off the speed it will operate at; after some "grace period" it will reset. Tesla says the driver
was reminded (I think, repeatedly) about hands off the wheel. That "reminder" needs to carry a big stick.�
Jul 12, 2016
Don85D What if the Tesla driver just fell asleep? It happens all of the time except in this case the vehicle didn't slowly drift off the road. It stayed in its lane as it was set to do.
The truck driver is at fault as in any left turn collision even if the Tesla driver fell asleep.
It's best to wait for the investigation results rather than construct scenarios as I have just done.
Blame is shareable, responsibility is not and the truck driver was responsible, in my opinion.�
Jul 12, 2016
Johan If Tesla get sued I think the most natural counter argument is: for what? The manual states:
[my bolding]
"Warning: Do not depend on Traffic- Aware Cruise Control to adequately and appropriately slow down Model S. Always watch the road in front of you and stay prepared to brake at all times. Traffic- Aware Cruise Control does not eliminate the need to apply the brakes as needed, even at slow speeds.
Warning: Traffic-Aware Cruise Control can not detect all objects and may not detect a stationary vehicle or other object
in the lane of travel. There may be situations in which Traffic-Aware Cruise Control does not detect a vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian. Depending on Traffic- Aware Cruise Control to avoid a collision can result in serious injury or death.
Warning: Traffic-Aware Cruise Control has limited deceleration ability and may be unable to apply enough braking to avoid a collision if a vehicle in front slows suddenly, or if a vehicle enters your driving lane in front of you. Never depend on Traffic-Aware Cruise Control to slow down the vehicle enough to prevent a collision. Always keep your eyes on the road when driving and be prepared to take corrective action as needed. Depending on Traffic-Aware Cruise Control to slow the vehicle down enough to prevent a collision can result in serious injury or death."
Now, on what basis do you sue Tesla for the system not doing what the system isn't designed to do, and not sold as capable of?�
Jul 12, 2016
NikeWings While not exact, I remembered a similar product liability debate intensity (& insanity) around this case and couldn't stop digging until I found it. Anyone else remember these? Alami vs Volkswagen and Manning vs Brown
NYT snapshot - Widow of Drunken Driver Can Sue Car Manufacturer, Court Says
Case Opinion Summary - 2 No. 15: Shauna Alami, &c. v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.�
Jul 12, 2016
SomeJoe7777 You know, this may be a highly likely scenario. Investigation of this possibility will require retracing Joshua's last 24 hours, i.e. did he get enough sleep, how long had he been driving without a break, etc.
People fall asleep while driving on the highway all the time, usually resulting in an accident where they drive off the road. In this case, it may be exactly as you say: he would have driven off the road in any other vehicle, but the Tesla kept driving. With the "hold steering wheel" alerts, he should have been prompted with the audible beep within 3-3.5 minutes if he had let go of the steering wheel, but that is plenty of time for this accident to have occurred.�
Jul 12, 2016
thegruf To be clear I am absolutely with Tesla on this but, a counter agurment could be
...actually I wrote this and then deleted it as no way am I possibly giving any ammunition to parasitic lawyers after nothing more than profiteering from somebody else's desperately sad misfortune.
I'll therefore say that the word "reasonable" is used in any context, there is no defense, particularly if the driver is shown to have set the system to maintain the car at an illegal speed.�
Jul 12, 2016
Jagwease There is always what is called the "last clear chance doctrine." What that means that if the car that would not normally be at fault had the last clear chance to avoid the accident, they must do so or we get back into comparative negligence. States have varying degrees of strictness on this. Washington state is brutal on LCC - it is almost get out of liability free if the person does not exercise the last clear chance. Other states, it is very minor and goes into the dog's breakfast that is comparative negligence.
My problem with this whole thread is that nobody knows the facts (and they won't be determined until there is Discovery - which will produce actual testimony and reports to be reviewed in the crucible of litigation) and few have any knowledge of the law.�
Jul 12, 2016
Canuck There was speculation that Tesla settled this case when the accident only occurred in May? That seems odd. I would think these types of cases usually involve a number of parties, insurers, and counsel and take years to settle, often on the eve of trial, if they do settle.
Agreed.�
Jul 12, 2016
omarsultan Your post is quite logical, which is why it has zero relevance to how these kinds of civil cases work in the US.
The plaintiff's attorney does not care about who is actually at fault, and given a choice, would rather not go to trial--as they are likely working on contingency, going to trial is an inefficient use of time. Instead the goal is to name anyone who is in a position to pay a claim as party to a lawsuit and them push for a settlement. If the guy/gal that painted the truck white has an E & O insurance policy, they should expect to get served. Plaintiff's attorneys count on (a) defendants wanting it to "go away" and (b) insurance companies wanting to limit the liability of a huge jury verdict.�
Jul 12, 2016
Sleepy3rd �
Jul 12, 2016
Drivin For the more recent case, not all questions may apply in this case?
Was the system designed to operate on that road in those conditions?
Was the system capable of determining the conditions under which it was operating
- The particular road?
- The frequency that the driver had hands on steering wheel?
If so, why was the driver able to enable the AP?
In other words, if the system was sold that it only should be operated on divided highways, and it knows that it is on a non-divided highway, the driver should not be able to enable AP. Otherwise it is a "wink, wink, nod, nod, - use only under these conditions our lawyers told us to write, but we will still enable it for a much bigger set of conditions"
Simple solutions here:
- AP only should be usable on approved roads.
- Driver should demonstrate alertness at all times (since it is what you mention that manual states, thanks!), by constant interaction with steering wheel (subtle involvement - no need for dramatic movement).�
Jul 12, 2016
W0QR This was a crash not an accident. And the truck driver was clearly at fault. The Tesla didn't pull out in front of the truck. Truck driver is culpable. That's who they ought to be suing.�
Jul 12, 2016
Sleepy3rd Please open attached NYT link, select Comments, select All, and scroll down to Sleepy3rd comment. Your consideration and any additional thoughts is appreciated. A Fatality Forces Tesla to Confront Its Limits - The New York Times�
Jul 12, 2016
calisnow Yep, there was. I read it here somewhere - logic seemed to be that Tesla would want to hush it up fast - probably was not speculation that an attorney such as yourself would have made, given that you understand how the legal system works and how long these things take.�
Jul 12, 2016
RogerHScott Before we all go setting up the gallows for the truck driver, consider this scenario: a truck wants to turn across the opposing lane;
it looks for traffic as far as the eye can see (and that's reasonably far -- no close visual obstructions) and sees none; it starts turning
across the lane, then stalls; a car comes along, paying no attention whatsoever; it approaches the stopped truck at full speed
and slams into it. Is the truck at fault here? It would be if you follow the reasoning of some of the above posts. It seems clear that
every such situation is ultimately a negotiation between two or more operators and both have a duty to be aware of their surroundings
and to make a reasonable effort to avoid an avoidable collision. No one can reasonably be expected to anticipate complete and total
lack of awareness by another operator.�
Jul 12, 2016
RubberToe This kind of ties in with the other thread about disclosing material facts to the SEC prior to any corporate action. If I were Tesla, I would be very proactive and send the SEC the entire telemetry database for every single car they have ever sold, for the 90 day period prior to any corporate action. Additional, I would ask Google to forward to the SEC all internet search history for every Tesla driver during that period to help establish their state of mind during these periods, including a comprehensive psychoanalysis of all ~150,000 owners by a panel of a minimum of 3 qualified psychoanalysts each.
Google and the ISP's may also be able to contribute usage data enabling the SEC to obtain the "rest level" of all the drivers during the period in question. And while they are at it, include the same info for all the drivers relatives, or anyone interacting with the driver in a "material" way.
Using the cars GPS for location, any/all video from alarm systems or surveillance cameras within say a 5 mile radius of any active Tesla vehicle for the prior 90 days should also be sent to the SEC. This will help identify the individual idiosyncrasies of each driver should any of them be involved in an accident in the 90 days prior to any SEC filing.
All log data from the cars should be printed out on old style fan fold computer paper to exclude the possibility of the data being "materially" tampered with, and the video footage should be archived to high quality VHS tapes in the spirit of reduce, reuse and recycle.
A fleet of ~2000 specially modified Model X's (all but one seat removed) could run a continuous loop from Tesla Headquarters in Fremont to the SEC Headquarters to ensure the continuous delivery of all the "material", while making judicious use of the Superchargers along the route in the process to keep the environmental impact to an absolute minimum.
That's how I would handle it. That's just me. Oh, and lots of lawyers too.
RT�
Jul 12, 2016
llngoc In this case here, I would risk to opinion-ate that the truck driver should be responsible as he is going to be charged already. But unfortunately he is not a face-less billion dollar company...
From my personal experience, this whole liability lawsuit industry is crazy. From my personal experience, a close family member was killed by a negligent driver and we actually ended up suing our own insurance company when our intention when we started out was to make him pay for his mistake just because we are fully insured and he is not. Otherwise, I would have to pay for my own lawyer...�
Jul 12, 2016
golfingBuddha Problem is, you haven't driven that road and seen that intersection. I have and I have seen the way truck drivers drive in the area. It just isn't so simple. The angle of the road, the width of the median, and the position of the sun play some pretty significant factors. I understand you want to be done though. I just wanted to point out that when a truck is in that median area and you are coming up the hill it is not entirely unreasonable to be confused as to what the truck is doing because you can see the side of the truck even if he/she isn't in your lane.
I don't know if he was inattentive or not at the time of the accident. You are the only one who seems sure. I'll reserve that speculation and give the poor man and his family some credit until proven otherwise.�
Jul 12, 2016
neuropilot Curious what people think of Alex Roy's article.
"Can Tesla Solve its Autopilot Problem?"
Can Tesla Solve its Autopilot Problem?
Apparently, there was sufficient time for an alert driver to stop before hitting the truck.�
Jul 12, 2016
stopcrazypp I'm not sure if I made it clear, but in my scenario the car sees the truck already. The truck may have already pulled forward (comments from the trucker indicate he stopped for another car to pass by, but didn't for the Tesla). The driver then made the decision to try to pass in front of the truck, so wouldn't have been reacting in a way that would be trying to apply the brakes as a first reaction.
Also, the scene depiction drawing clearly says the it is not to scale, so I would not rely on that to say where the car actually hit the truck. For one thing, the size of the median is clearly not correct, if you compare to satellite photos.
Like golfingbuddha says, the way the intersection is, you can see the side of the truck already well before it is crossing the intersection. Thus it may not be immediately clear the intention of the truck just from its position (another comment a while back said it could be possible the driver saw the truck pause for the car before it and then thought the truck would do the same for him).�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét