Tesla sued after fatal crash, accused of making “unreasonably dangerous” car

Florida passenger died when the driver crashed car at 116 mph.

Read the whole story

 

[j0nib3lla]

Sorry.. I fail to see how Tesla owes this family anything. Their 18 year old son got into a car with somebody else and was killed while the vehicle was driving at excess speeds. I can however understand the Rileys sueing for negligence if they truly removed the limiter. I'm not an expert on batteries in cars and the safety regulations, but I am assuming that the car has passed whatever federal regulations that are required to sell in the US.

The limiter is not a US federal requirement. It's a way to preserve the vehicle during test drives or provide a 'feel good' feature for parents who (for some reason) are letting their teenagers drive cars with 400+hp.

How would a company be negligent in removing a limiter, even if they didn't tell anyone?

My guess was that the limiter exists because it is required in some non-U.S. countries, so it was easy to make it optional in the U.S. firmware.

There is no such country that I'm aware of. There has been discussion of mandates, and back in the day, speedometers were limited by law to 85 in the US, but that was long ago rescinded. Anyone from a country with a speed limiter mandate can check in, but as far as I'm aware, some manufacturers only apply speed limiters to prevent damage to the vehicle (rev limiters) or optionally for parents to help "control" their teens (like Ford).

 

[ChickenHawk]

Sorry.. I fail to see how Tesla owes this family anything. Their 18 year old son got into a car with somebody else and was killed while the vehicle was being driven at excess speeds. I can however understand the Rileys sueing for negligence if they truly removed the limiter. I'm not an expert on batteries in cars and the safety regulations, but I am assuming that the car has passed whatever federal regulations that are required to sell in the US.

I believe the legal theory goes, that if the owner of the car had known that the regulator was not operational, they would not have loaned the car, and thus there would have been no accident. If they can sell that theory, that would show blame at Tesla.

I think this argument of causation a stretch at best. Regulator or no, the driver could have chosen to drive at a reasonable speed and thus avoid an accident, he did not choose to do so.

 

[Happy Medium]

They were both 18, legally adults, responsible for their own destiny.

Neither Tesla, the service center or their parents are responsible.

Any judge or potential jury should shed tears for the tragedy and pain here, but otherwise laugh the money grabbers out of the court room.

Embracing personal responsibility is one of the best ways to prevent tragedy. Likewise, embracing stupidity, is one of the best ways to perpetuate tragedy.

There's no way Barrett Riley could have been responsible for driving like a complete ass and risking his own life, his passenger's life, and the lives of anybody he happened to crash into at insane speeds. After all, given his parents' completely idiotic parenting instincts, he clearly was suffering from affluenza. /s

 

[spitz!!]

They were both 18, legally adults, responsible for their own destiny.

Neither Tesla, the service center or their parents are responsible.

Any judge or potential jury should shed tears for the tragedy and pain here, but otherwise laugh the money grabbers out of the court room.

Embracing personal responsibility is one of the best ways to prevent tragedy. Likewise, embracing stupidity, is one of the best ways to perpetuate tragedy.

There's no way Barrett Riley could have been responsible for driving like a complete ass and risking his own life, his passenger's life, and the lives of anybody he happened to crash into at insane speeds. After all, given his parents' completely idiotic parenting instincts, he clearly was suffering from affluenza. /s

This guy was what we call a "man child".

 

[Renzatic]

I would more likely believe there was some sort of firmware upgrade that caused some things to be reset to defaults (i.e. no governor). Why would they disable it intentionally? Arguably, that is the very definition of "negligence", but as no such safety mechanism is required by law, it is negligence only potentially in breach of contract, and not in any criminal fashion.

He barely has a case as-is.

Though if the limited in this case is defined by the user, then the onus of responsibility is entirely upon said user to make sure it's set to their standards when they let someone else take the vehicle out of the driveway. That the dealer may have reset it to factory defaults during a checkup makes them in no way responsible.

But even if it isn't, this case hinges upon the notion that Tesla is somehow responsible for the driver's irresponsible behavior, simply because they accidentally provided him the means to be irresponsible without informing the owner.

 

[Don Reba]

If TV is to be trusted, and I see no reason it should not be, all cars erupt into great fireballs on collision, with pieces of the car body flying in all directions.

 

[delonearth]

Irrespective of the liability, the chain of argument here doesn't follow...If 110 is an insane speed and death doing 85 is almost as likely an outcome from a crash...

Then HTF do you justify allowing cruise control speed to be set to 85?

 

[ChickenHawk]

If TV is to be trusted, and I see no reason it should not be, all cars erupt into great fireballs on collision, with pieces of the car body flying in all directions.

No, thats Fruit stands. But only in Hong Kong....

 

[Luddite Curmudgeon]

This "governor" speed limiter issue sounds like a load of crap for their case... Similar to some of the anti-gun people out there who say no one NEEDS a gun, well no one NEEDS a car that goes over 70mph; but tens, if not hundreds of millions of them are sold every year.

I'll be snarky and say that the speed limit on the Interstates in Wyoming and eastern Montana is 80mph. So 70 is a problem.

 

[LoweStein]

That adult driver chose to repeatedly speed at ridiculous speeds and was killed as a result. The parents need to grow up and move on.

 

[ChickenHawk]

Irrespective of the liability, the chain of argument here doesn't follow...If 110 is an insane speed and death doing 85 is almost as likely an outcome from a crash...

Then HTF do you justify allowing cruise control speed to be set to 85?

Its not cruise control, its the maximum speed of the vehicle.

I find that choice odd myself. Commercial Vehicles in the UK frequently have signs on the back saying they are limited to a speed between 55 and 65 (depending on the vehicle). Why you'd put the max at 85 makes no sense to me.

 

[l27]

I can't imagine a crash then a battery fire. I'm imaging that video you often see of someone poking a lithium ion-battery and it explodes with a geyser of fire. Terrible way to go.

As of my quoting you 10 people can imagine a crash then a battery fire... /s

I'm guessing the reason for the down votes is because they don't think the batteries catching on fire in a crash is a problem, because it was the fault of the driver who was a jackass by the sounds of it. Hard to tell what the down votes are for.

 

[Renzatic]

Why you'd put the max at 85 makes no sense to me.

BUT DAD, I WANNA GO FAAASSSSTT!

 

[BigOlBlimp]

When I read this article I kind of feel like I’m on one of those sites that tries to reinforce their readers biases by making them angry.

 

[Vendicar Kahn]

Ridiculous

No one predicted that this would happen.

No One!!!

 

[Fatesrider]

A very sad accident.

There aren't a lot of vehicles out there that are going to protect you enough at 116mph.

Tesla definitely shouldn't have removed the limiter without their permission though.

That seems to me to be the only allegation with any merit. The rest is hyperbole and generally meritless. No car company can protect passengers from the egregious stupidity of the driver.

 

[ChickenHawk]

Ridiculous

No one predicted that this would happen.

No One!!!

Who knew you're more likely to have an accident at high speed? This speed thing is really really hard.

 

[Biceps]

I feel for the family, but sorry, but this kid is 100% at fault. If he, as an adult at 18, asked for the governor to be removed, then someone is probably going to do it. Removing a governor does not, on its own, result in an accident.

Putting an 18-year old who has already shown to be irresponsible behind the wheel of a sports car is irresponsible.

Any car that has a collision at 116 miles an hour is in danger of catching on fire. Battery or no battery.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

 

[omniron]

Sorry.. I fail to see how Tesla owes this family anything. Their 18 year old son got into a car with somebody else and was killed while the vehicle was being driven at excess speeds. I can however understand the Rileys sueing for negligence if they truly removed the limiter. I'm not an expert on batteries in cars and the safety regulations, but I am assuming that the car has passed whatever federal regulations that are required to sell in the US.

I believe the legal theory goes, that if the owner of the car had known that the regulator was not operational, they would not have loaned the car, and thus there would have been no accident. If they can sell that theory, that would show blame at Tesla.

I think this argument of causation a stretch at best. Regulator or no, the driver could have chosen to drive at a reasonable speed and thus avoid an accident, he did not choose to do so.

I don’t think this argument would hold since the top speed of 85mph is just as deadly.

I understand this family is hurting and looking for some way to make sense of a senseless death, but it’s clear this kid was a wreckless driver, and no amount of safety features would solve this.

Suing the carmaker because a courtesy speed limiter wasn’t in place is like suing the government because the lines on a road can’t ACTUALLY stop a car from crossing over them.

Vehicles are inherently dangerous, it’s really amazing how modern day cars are as safe as they are. It’s literally just an agreement to follow certain rules that millions of people don’t die every day from driving.

If someone is following the rules and a car is unsafe that’s a different problem.

 

[Luddite Curmudgeon]

Irrespective of the liability, the chain of argument here doesn't follow...If 110 is an insane speed and death doing 85 is almost as likely an outcome from a crash...

Then HTF do you justify allowing cruise control speed to be set to 85?

Its not cruise control, its the maximum speed of the vehicle.

I find that choice odd myself. Commercial Vehicles in the UK frequently have signs on the back saying they are limited to a speed between 55 and 65 (depending on the vehicle). Why you'd put the max at 85 makes no sense to me.

Well, if you live in the western part of the Dakotas, or Wyoming or eastern Montana, the speed limit there is 80 on the Interstates. You might go 85 to pass a slowpoke vehicle that's crawling along at 77.

 

[Boskone]

Non-American here, but if you're caught doing 112mph how do you keep your license? In Australia ~15mph will get you a 3 month suspension.

Depends on the state, municipality, and possibly circumstances.

I think a lot of states, rather than saying something like "if you're going X mph over you get suspended", have a catch-all "reckless driving" rule. So if you're driving particularly stupidly--be it speeding, driving too slow, DWI, weaving, poorly-secured load, whatever--they just slap that on and try to get your license suspended.

 

[Kaji01]

Non-American here, but if you're caught doing 112mph how do you keep your license? In Australia ~15mph will get you a 3 month suspension.

Depends on the state, municipality, and possibly circumstances.

I think a lot of states, rather than saying something like "if you're going X mph over you get suspended", have a catch-all "reckless driving" rule. So if you're driving particularly stupidly--be it speeding, driving too slow, DWI, weaving, poorly-secured load, whatever--they just slap that on and try to get your license suspended.

This. In Virginia the law makes anything over 80 an automatic reckless ticket, as well as anything 20+ over. From 1-19 over it's the officer's discretion; generally speaking up to 10 over is safe, 12-15 and they start pulling people over. Though I have heard of tickets for 26 in a 25 in a couple of jurisdictions...

Also, isn't it Montana that has *no* speed limit on its highways at night time?

 

[drefanzor]

Everyone saying the kids were so smart by removing the governor, but forgetting that the kids were driving like morons, sigh.

 

[Boskone]

Non-American here, but if you're caught doing 112mph how do you keep your license? In Australia ~15mph will get you a 3 month suspension.

Depends on the state, municipality, and possibly circumstances.

I think a lot of states, rather than saying something like "if you're going X mph over you get suspended", have a catch-all "reckless driving" rule. So if you're driving particularly stupidly--be it speeding, driving too slow, DWI, weaving, poorly-secured load, whatever--they just slap that on and try to get your license suspended.

This. In Virginia the law makes anything over 80 an automatic reckless ticket, as well as anything 20+ over. From 1-19 over it's the officer's discretion; generally speaking up to 10 over is safe, 12-15 and they start pulling people over. Though I have heard of tickets for 26 in a 25 in a couple of jurisdictions...

Also, isn't it Montana that has *no* speed limit on its highways at night time?

I think Montana used to have no daytime highway speed limit, but a 65mph nighttime speed limit. AFAIK, it's got a 70 or 75mph daytime limit now.

 

[UltimateLemon]

Why the hell would you let a kid who already got caught doing 112mph continue driving?

 

[Boskone]

Why the hell would you let a kid who already got caught doing 112mph continue driving?

Because it wasn't the kid's fault he was speeding, it was someone else' for having a car that let them drive that fast!

</s>

 

[UltimateLemon]

Another day, another greedy lawsuit hoping to roll a technologically-incompetent jury to dupe.


Unless discovery uncovers some kind of bombshell on the speed limiter part, there's not much difference between this and blaming Tesla's "autopilot" for the actions of deliberately negligent drivers.

Except the parents of the son driving the car are extraordinary wealthy, so I'm not thinking greed has much to do with it. Just grieving parents that are looking to point the finger at someone else.

This happens often where kids make unfortunate choices and then end up losing their lives. Then parents want laws changed to protect kids, it's just a way of dealing with their grief.

Those that belittle them have character flaws of their own.

That's an odd assumption to just assume rich people aren't likely to be greedy.

 

[UltimateLemon]

Why the hell would you let a kid who already got caught doing 112mph continue driving?

Because it wasn't the kid's fault he was speeding, it was someone else' for having a car that let them drive that fast!

</s>

Let's class action lawsuit the government for daring to build paved roads!!!

 

[dorkbert]

Here's a snippet from Miami Herald

Two months after being ticketed for driving 112 mph in a 50 mph zone, Barrett Riley had the same Tesla Model S at 116 mph three seconds before the May 8 flaming crash that killed him and Edgar Monserratt Martinez on Fort Lauderdale's Seabreeze Boulevard.

As for the battery that caught on fire, the (NTSB) report says, "Small portions of the lithium-ion high-voltage battery had separated from the vehicle, and — though there was no visible fire — (Fort Lauderdale Fire Department) applied water and foam to the debris.

"During the loading of the car for removal from the scene, the battery reignited and was quickly extinguished. Upon arrival at the storage yard, the battery reignited again. A local fire department responded to the storage yard and extinguished the fire."
.
.
.
The speed limit is 30 mph on Seabreeze Boulevard. As southbound drivers approach a left curve near the 1300 block, a sign with a flashing light advises to take the curve at 25 mph.

I am not grasping how the Rileys realistically thinks they have a case.

 

[Faanchou]

Except the parents of the son driving the car are extraordinary wealthy, so I'm not thinking greed has much to do with it. Just grieving parents that are looking to point the finger at someone else.

This happens often where kids make unfortunate choices and then end up losing their lives. Then parents want laws changed to protect kids, it's just a way of dealing with their grief.

Those that belittle them have character flaws of their own.

People who want to hold others legally liable when they fail at parenting deserve to be belittled.

People who want to hold third parties legally liable when the party who fatally failed at parenting is extraordinately wealthy doubly so.

 

[secretmanofagent]

Interesting to mention that there was a feature added in after his death specifically to restrict the speed further:
https://electrek.co/2018/06/26/tesla-de ... l-s-crash/

There's an very unique aspect, in that according to that article it was a 30 MPH zone which matches a linked article:

In this case, it was only a 30 mph zone and the police believe he was driving much faster and therefore, an 85 mph limit couldn’t change much.

 

[mhalpern]

A very sad accident.

There aren't a lot of vehicles out there that are going to protect you enough at 116mph.

Tesla definitely shouldn't have removed the limiter without their permission though.

Assuming that is what happened

 

[mattlantis]

Tesla has this thing where company owned cars that are used for test drives and loaners have a speed limiter set to 85 MPH. This limiter is supposed to be removed when the car is sold to someone, though there have been a few isolated cases where there was an oversight and the limit remained after the car was sold.

What I'm guessing happened is that when the owners of this particular Tesla asked for a speed limit, Tesla went ahead and triggered that code on that car. Then, later, when the car was brought in for service, some technician saw that the limit was in place and, not knowing the history and why it was in place, removed it because it's not supposed to be in place on customer cars.

I'll let the courts decide whether this actually opened Tesla to any liability.

I would say it's far more likely the driver simply asked them to remove it. The Ars article doesn't go into just how exceptional the circumstances of the crash were.

The previous ticket plus details of the crash make me think the driver was exceptionally reckless. It's not like he was doing 116 on the highway, which would be wild enough. Another article I read about this said the 116 mph crash occurred in a THIRTY mph zone, with an explicit 25 mph sign on the curve where the accident happened. And the driver was passing someone at the time.

(https://www.marketwatch.com/story/tesla ... 2019-01-08)

Isn't there some legal notion that no one other than the person can have liability when someone does something exceptionally reckless or outlandish? Like if a football helmet is found to be defective, I can't sue the manufacturer if I'm hurt using it to jump out of airplanes. The defects might be real, but only people who were using it to play football would have standing to sue?

 

[rmgoat]

I can't imagine a crash then a battery fire. I'm imaging that video you often see of someone poking a lithium ion-battery and it explodes with a geyser of fire. Terrible way to go.

Yes a gasoline fire is a much better way to go.

 

[evan_s]

Here's a snippet from Miami Herald

Two months after being ticketed for driving 112 mph in a 50 mph zone, Barrett Riley had the same Tesla Model S at 116 mph three seconds before the May 8 flaming crash that killed him and Edgar Monserratt Martinez on Fort Lauderdale's Seabreeze Boulevard.

As for the battery that caught on fire, the (NTSB) report says, "Small portions of the lithium-ion high-voltage battery had separated from the vehicle, and — though there was no visible fire — (Fort Lauderdale Fire Department) applied water and foam to the debris.

"During the loading of the car for removal from the scene, the battery reignited and was quickly extinguished. Upon arrival at the storage yard, the battery reignited again. A local fire department responded to the storage yard and extinguished the fire."
.
.
.
The speed limit is 30 mph on Seabreeze Boulevard. As southbound drivers approach a left curve near the 1300 block, a sign with a flashing light advises to take the curve at 25 mph.

I am not grasping how the Rileys realistically thinks they have a case.

Okay, so both the driver and front seat passenger were killed.
Edit and apparently a back seat passenger was thrown from the car and survived.

And holy crap they were doing 90 over the posted limit for the curve and trying to pass someone before slamming on to brakes and trying to make a hard turn.

I find it interesting that you clipped out the part immediately before them dousing the small parts of the battery

The Fort Lauderdale Fire and Rescue Department arrived at the crash scene and found the
Tesla fully engulfed in flames. They extinguished the vehicle fire using 200–300 gallons of water and foam.

 

[byosys]

Non-American here, but if you're caught doing 112mph how do you keep your license? In Australia ~15mph will get you a 3 month suspension.

Anyway, hopefully Riley the younger winds up in prison. His gross negligence cost someone's life.

Traffic laws vary (often widely) by state. In my state, anything >= 30 mph over the posted speed limit is automatically reckless driving with a hefty fine and 6 month (IIRC) license suspension.

 

[Frodo Douchebaggins]

The kid driving was unreasonably stupid, and the parents were unreasonably stupid to let him keep driving. Sue them.

 

[shawnce]

The owner of the Tesla via the mobile app can set a speed limit themselves for the vehicle and it is locked via a PIN number. It can also be done via the control console in the car.

Additionally the can enable a valet mode which has further restrictions.

This feature has been around in an end user form for a few months now (added and enhanced via software updates).

They can also view the location and speed of the vehicle at anytime in the mobile app (assuming cellular connectivity and the man child didn’t disable the network).

I bet - assuming the man child - took the car in for service asked to have whatever limiter was in place to be removed or a software update clear what I presume was an early version of the software based limiter.

...oh I missed that this happened earlier last year, I had seen it as just happening in 2019 when I first scanned the article. It is just that the legal case was recently openned.