A federal judge has upheld a $243 million jury verdict against Tesla over a fatal 2019 Autopilot crash, sustaining the first federal jury award tied to a deadly accident involving the driver-assistance system.
A federal judge has rejected Tesla’s attempt to overturn a $243 million jury verdict arising from a 2019 crash involving an Autopilot-equipped Model S that killed a 22-year-old woman and severely injured her boyfriend.
In a decision made public Friday, U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom in Miami said the evidence at trial “more than supports” the August 2025 verdict and that Tesla presented no new arguments that would justify setting it aside. The ruling leaves intact what is widely regarded as the first federal jury verdict concerning a fatal crash involving Tesla’s Autopilot system.
Register for Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 19 (Feb 9 – May 2, 2026).
Register for Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and co-invest in great global startups.
Register for Tekedia AI Lab.
Tesla is expected to appeal.
The case stems from a crash on April 25, 2019, in Key Largo, Florida. George McGee was driving his 2019 Model S at about 62 mph (100 kph) when he bent down to retrieve his dropped cellphone. The vehicle traveled through an intersection and struck an SUV parked on the shoulder. Naibel Benavides Leon and Dillon Angulo were standing beside the SUV at the time. Benavides was killed; Angulo suffered severe injuries.
McGee reached a prior settlement with the plaintiffs and was not part of the verdict against Tesla.
Jurors found Tesla 33% responsible for the crash. They awarded $19.5 million in compensatory damages to Benavides’ estate and $23.1 million to Angulo. The jury also imposed $200 million in punitive damages, to be divided between them, bringing the total judgment to $243 million.
The allocation of fault reflects the jury’s conclusion that driver negligence and product-related factors both played roles in the crash.
In seeking to overturn the verdict, Tesla argued that McGee alone was responsible for the collision and that the Model S was not defective. The company said the verdict “defied common sense” and argued that automakers “do not insure the world against harms caused by reckless drivers.”
Tesla also challenged the punitive damages award, asserting that it did not exhibit “reckless disregard for human life,” the threshold required under Florida law.
Judge Bloom rejected those arguments, writing that the trial record supported the jury’s conclusions and that Tesla had not identified grounds to disturb the findings. By upholding both compensatory and punitive damages, the ruling reinforces the jury’s determination that the case met the legal standard for punitive liability.
Adam Boumel, a lawyer representing Benavides’ estate and Angulo, welcomed the decision.
“From day one, Tesla has refused to accept responsibility,” Boumel said in an email. “Autopilot was defective, and Tesla put it on American roads before it was ready and before it was safe.”
The verdict is a milestone in litigation involving advanced driver-assistance systems. While Tesla has faced numerous lawsuits over crashes involving Autopilot and its Full Self-Driving software, many were dismissed, settled, or resolved before reaching a jury. This case is the first in federal court in which jurors imposed substantial liability for a fatal Autopilot-related crash.
The decision could influence how future juries assess responsibility in cases involving partially automated systems. Autopilot is designed as a driver-assistance feature, requiring drivers to remain attentive and ready to intervene. Tesla has consistently maintained that drivers are responsible for maintaining control of their vehicles at all times.
The plaintiffs, however, argued that the system was defective and that Tesla’s design and deployment decisions contributed to the crash. The jury’s finding that Tesla bore 33% of the responsibility indicates that it accepted at least part of that argument.
The punitive damages component is particularly significant. Such awards are intended not only to compensate victims but also to punish conduct deemed especially egregious and to deter similar behavior. Under Florida law, punitive damages require proof of intentional misconduct or gross negligence. By allowing the award to stand, the court signaled that the jury had sufficient evidence to meet that standard.
Implications for Tesla’s Autonomy Strategy
Elon Musk, Tesla’s chief executive and the world’s richest person, has long positioned the company as a leader in autonomous driving technology for private vehicles and robotaxis. Tesla continues to promote advancements in its driver-assistance systems as a central pillar of its future growth strategy.
The upheld verdict comes as the broader automotive industry races to deploy increasingly sophisticated automation features, while regulators and courts grapple with how to assign responsibility when human drivers and software share control.
Tesla’s expected appeal will likely focus on legal standards for product defect, causation, and punitive damages. Appellate review could address whether the evidence was sufficient to support findings of defect and reckless disregard, as well as whether the size of the punitive award complies with constitutional limits.