A federal courtroom in Miami has delivered a blunt message to Tesla: the jury’s decision stands.
U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom declined to undo a $243 million verdict tied to a deadly 2019 crash involving a Model S operating with Autopilot engaged. In a ruling made public Friday, the judge concluded that trial evidence “more than supports” the jury’s findings and that the company failed to introduce any persuasive new grounds to disturb the award.
The crash unfolded on April 25, 2019, in Key Largo, Florida. The driver of a 2019 Model S, traveling roughly 62 mph, reportedly bent down to retrieve a dropped phone. The vehicle barreled through an intersection and struck an SUV parked along the shoulder, where 22-year-old Naibel Benavides Leon and her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo, were standing. Benavides was killed; Angulo survived with serious injuries.
Jurors apportioned 33% of the blame to Tesla. They granted $19.5 million in compensatory damages to Benavides’ estate and $23.1 million to Angulo. An additional $200 million in punitive damages was awarded, to be divided between the two. The driver had previously reached a settlement with the plaintiffs.
The case marked the first time a federal jury has ruled on a fatal crash involving Tesla’s Autopilot system.
In its attempt to overturn the verdict, Tesla argued that the driver alone bore responsibility, insisting the Model S was not defective and that holding the automaker liable defied logic. The company maintained that manufacturers cannot be treated as insurers against reckless driving and contended that punitive damages were unwarranted under Florida law.
Attorneys for the victims countered that Autopilot was released before it was road-ready, placing unproven technology in everyday traffic. They welcomed the judge’s refusal to disturb the verdict.
Tesla is expected to appeal.
For years, the company—led by billionaire chief executive Elon Musk—has promoted its self-driving ambitions as the future of personal transport and robotaxis. This ruling, however, underscores the legal and human costs that can shadow that vision when technology collides with reality.
