by Judge Upholds $243 Million Verdict Against Tesla
Tesla often defends its Autopilot and Full Self-Driving systems in court, and usually emerges victorious or reaches a settlement. That’s why last year’s $243 million verdict in a fatal Autopilot crash case was such significant news. The automaker challenged this decision, but now a federal judge has upheld the jury’s findings.
U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom in Miami rejected Tesla’s request to overturn or reduce the jury verdict reached in August 2025. She noted that the evidence presented at trial more than supports the verdict, and that the company did not provide any new arguments for its reversal.
Details of the Crash and Trial
The crash occurred in 2019. During the trial, the Tesla driver admitted his guilt. He stated that he dropped his phone inside the car and was trying to find it when the vehicle veered off the road and collided with another car, resulting in one fatality and another person injured. Later, the driver testified that he believed the system would automatically brake if there was an obstacle ahead.
The driver believed that the system would automatically brake if there was an obstacle ahead.
Allocation of Liability According to the Jury Verdict
The federal jury found Tesla 33% responsible for the crash. The jurors awarded $19.5 million in compensatory damages to one victim’s family and $23.1 million to another injured person, as well as $200 million in punitive damages to be distributed between them. The driver had previously settled with the plaintiffs out of court.
Tesla insisted that the fault lies solely with the driver, arguing that automakers “do not insure the world against harm caused by irresponsible drivers.” The company also claimed that punitive damages should be zero because it did not act with “conscious disregard for human life” under Florida law.
Significance of the Verdict and Future Appeals
This decision marks the first time a federal jury has reached a verdict in a fatal crash case involving Tesla’s Autopilot system. Typically, the company wins such cases or settles before a verdict is reached. This comes against the backdrop of Tesla’s statements about plans to launch fully autonomous vehicles worldwide. For example, driverless Teslas are already operating on public roads in Austin, Texas.
The case is expected to continue. Tesla will almost certainly appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which oversees Florida. Although the company cannot re-litigate the facts of the case, it has several legal avenues, such as challenging the judge’s legal decisions or questioning whether the damages exceed those allowed by Florida law.
This case highlights the complexity of legally regulating autonomous technologies and establishing liability. Despite technological progress, the question of where exactly the line lies between the driver’s responsibilities and the system’s capabilities remains open and is being decided in courtrooms. Further appeals may set important precedents for future similar cases, impacting not only Tesla but the entire autonomous vehicle development industry.
