In August 2025, a Miami jury delivered a jury verdict that could alter the landscape of autonomous vehicle technology and automaker liability. Tesla was found 33 percent responsible for a fatal crash involving its Tesla Autopilot driver assistance technology, ordering the automaker to pay $243 million in compensatory damages and a massive punitive award. This case, often referred to in discussions as Benavides v. Tesla, involved George Brian McGee, the driver of a Model S, and tragic victims Naibel Benavides Leon and Dillon Angulo.
The 2019 Crash in Key Largo
The incident took place on Card Sound Road in the Florida Keys when George Brian McGee, operating his Model S with driver assistance software engaged, reportedly bent down to retrieve a phone. This distraction caused the vehicle to collide with a parked Chevrolet Tahoe, fatally injuring Naibel Benavides (also identified in court records as Naibel Benavides Leon) and seriously injuring Dillon Angulo.
Prosecutors argued that Tesla’s driver-assistance system allowed its Full Self-Driving features to be engaged outside controlled-access highways, a condition Tesla’s manuals had advised against , and that design flaws in Tesla’s technology and self-driving capabilities failed to prevent the serious accident.
Jury’s Findings and Damages
The jury decision placed 67 percent of fault on McGee and 33 percent on Tesla, but since McGee was not a defendant in the wrongful death lawsuits, Tesla is responsible for the total loss. Damages included $129 million in compensatory damages and $200 million in punitive damages, with Tesla paying $243 million after adjustments.
This outcome is not just a financial blow, it is a major legal precedent in autonomous vehicle safety. It underscores how courts may hold manufacturers accountable for vehicle safety, safety defects, and misleading marketing tied to self-driving software and self-driving hype.
Marketing, Safety, and Public Perception
Tesla, led by Elon Musk, has often promoted self-driving vehicles and Enhanced Autopilot as transformative AI technologies capable of rivaling human drivers. Critics argue that such vehicle marketing can foster overreliance, especially among Tesla owners unaware of engineering factors and lane-keeping protocols limitations.
The plaintiffs alleged misleading marketing and inadequate driver assistance services contributed to the crash. They claimed Tesla failed to implement stronger pedestrian detection, effective driver distraction prevention, or enforce limitations to controlled-access highways.
Safety advocates point to the role of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in overseeing public safety and say this case will draw regulatory attention to autonomous driving and driver assist technology deployment.
Legal and Regulatory Impact
This case reflects changing legal arguments in federal lawsuits and federal jury trials involving autonomous vehicles, autonomous safety, and automotive safety. Manufacturers may now face greater scrutiny for design flaws, safety record issues, and safety defects that lead to fatal crashes.
It could also influence mass torts strategies and civil rights claims when AI technologies in transport disproportionately affect certain communities. Law firms, including Singleton Schreiber, have already explored similar fire litigation and wrongful death lawsuits involving electric vehicles like Model X, Model Y, and Model 3.
Technology and Product Design Concerns
Tesla’s reliance on over-the-air software updates to enhance self-driving capabilities and FSD Full Self-Driving raises questions about post-sale liability. Critics argue that continuous changes may mask design flaws or introduce new risks without sufficient forensic data expert review.
While autonomous vehicle safety remains a top industry goal, the integration of AI expert systems must be balanced with public safety, clear warnings, and driver assistance software that actively mitigates driver distraction.
Geographic and Business Implications
The crash location in Key Largo highlights that autonomous driving risks extend beyond controlled-access highways. Similar concerns are in Austin, Texas, where Tesla’s Robotaxi service plans are expanding.
Delays in these projects could affect insurance company risk assessments, automaker liability exposure, and overall vehicle safety standards for electric vehicles.
Broader Lessons from Benavides v. Tesla
- Regulatory attention is likely to increase as autonomous vehicle technology continues to evolve.
- Legal precedent now exists for holding automakers partially liable in wrongful death lawsuits involving driver assistance technology.
- Manufacturers must address design flaws and engineering factors before scaling self-driving vehicles to mass markets.
- Marketing claims that promote self-driving hype without clarifying limitations could lead to federal lawsuits.
- Courtroom stance on emerging AI technologies will shape how civil rights, public safety, and automotive safety intersect.
About Ted Law Firm
Ted Law Firm, has a strong history of guiding clients through federal lawsuits, mass torts, and We serve families across Aiken, Anderson, Charleston, Columbia, Greenville, Myrtle Beach, North Augusta and Orangeburg. complex litigation arising from autonomous vehicle technology, vehicle safety, and automotive safety matters. Contact us today for a free consultation.
