Sheriff: 5 Hurt After Tesla Autopilot Flips Car Into Marsh

July 16, 2017

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) – Officials in central Minnesota say five people were hurt Saturday when the autopilot feature on a Tesla electric car suddenly accelerated, causing it to flip into a marsh.

The Kandiyohi County Sheriff’s Office says the rollover crash happened around 7:30 p.m. at the intersection of 141st Street Northeast and 172nd Avenue Northeast in Irving Township.

Deputies found the 2016 Tesla upside-down.

Behind the wheel was 58-year-old David Clark of Eden Prairie. He was traveling east on 172nd Avenue and approaching the intersection when he engaged the autopilot and the car suddenly accelerated, causing it to shoot off the road and flip over.

The sheriff’s office says Clark and his four passengers suffered minor injuries.

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2017/07/16/tesla-autopilot-crash/

Twin Cities man says he's to blame, not Tesla autopilot, for crash into marsh

Sheriff's Office said driver reported at the scene Saturday a "sudden acceleration" when autopilot was engaged. 

By Paul Walsh Star Tribune

JULY 17, 2017 

FILE -- Jason Fudenberg, the president of the Los Angeles Tesla Club, drives using autopilot on the 101 freeway near Sherman Oaks, Calif., on July 1, 2016.

A Twin Cities man whose Tesla rolled over into a central Minnesota marsh said Monday that he errantly believed his luxury electric car’s “autopilot” feature was engaged when the vehicle suddenly accelerated before the crash landing.

David L. Clark, 58, of Eden Prairie, said he was driving Saturday evening before sunset on a country road 18 miles northeast of Willmar, when the crash occurred, the Kandiyohi County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement Sunday.

Clark and four adults in the vehicle, which landed on its roof, were slightly hurt.

In a statement issued the next day, the Sheriff’s Office gave this description of the crash along eastbound 172nd Avenue NE.: “Clark stated that when he engaged the autopilot feature that the vehicle suddenly accelerated, causing the car to leave the roadway and overturn.”

A statement from Tesla issued Monday cast doubt on that scenario, saying the company has “no reason to believe [the autopilot feature] worked other than as designed.”

Clark told the Star Tribune Monday that he is trying to get the Sheriff’s Office to change its account to what he says actually happened “as we were traveling back from our lake place” with two of his nephews and others.

In an e-mail sent late Sunday to the responding deputy, Quinton Pomplun, and shared with the Star Tribune, Clark said, “I did not intend to put the blame [on] Tesla or the autopilot system.”

Clark wrote that “to the best of my recollection, I had engaged the autopilot system, but then I had disengaged it by stepping on the accelerator. I then remember looking up and seeing the sharp left turn, which I was accelerating into. I believe we started to make the turn, but then felt the car give way and lose its footing.”

The deputy’s response, also shared by Clark with the Star Tribune, read, “With the information we talked about [at the scene] I was in the understanding that the vehicle was in autopilot, based on how you explained it.” The deputy added that he intended to update his reports.

The autopilot feature uses cameras, radar and computers to detect objects and automatically brake if the car is about to hit something. It also can steer the car to keep it centered in its lane.

Other carmakers offer vehicle features akin to autopilot, but not to the degree of autonomy in Tesla’s technology. For example, Mercedes-Benz has a steering-free mode, but it requires hand contact with the steering wheel.

In a statement issued Monday, Tesla said it is “working to establish the facts of the incident and have offered our full cooperation to the local authorities. We have not yet established whether the vehicle’s autopilot feature was activated and have no reason to believe [it] worked other than as designed.”

Other “sudden acceleration” crashes have been attributed by motorists to the autopilot technology. Electrek, an industry website that focuses on alternative transportation advances, has reported that data logs from the vehicles have often revealed that the drivers were actually responsible.

Tesla’s statement responding to the Minnesota crash emphasized that whenever drivers activate the autopilot, “they are reminded of their responsibility to remain engaged and to be prepared to take immediate action at all times, and drivers must acknowledge their responsibility to do so before autopilot is enabled.”

Tesla spokeswoman Keely Sulprizio declined to make any company officials available for questions.

A federal lawsuit filed in California is seeking class-action status for other claims of sudden acceleration made by Tesla motorists in various states.

In May 2016, a motorist near Gainesville, Fla., was killed when his Tesla collided with a semitrailer truck while in the self-driving mode. The crash brought intense scrutiny on the technology and whether the car’s manufacturer, based in Palo Alto, Calif., overstated the capability of the autopilot feature.

Federal investigators reviewed the crash and chose not to impose a recall, concluding there was no safety defect involved in the collision. At the same time, regulators warned the vehicle’s operators to not treat the semiautonomous cars as if they are fully self-driving.

 http://www.startribune.com/twin-cities-man-says-hes-to-blame-not-tesla-autopilot-for-crash-into-marsh/434941843/

Settlement unlikely in Tesla’s sudden acceleration case

Settlement unlikely in Tesla’s sudden acceleration case

PUBLISHED :June 26, 2017 - 16:46 UPDATED :June 27, 2017 - 11:35

 

[THE INVESTOR] Korean actor-singer Son Ji-chang is determined to proceed with his lawsuit against

Tesla, in which he accuses the automaker of defects leading to sudden unintended acceleration.

 

“We have no reason to believe that this case will be settled anytime in the near future,” Richard

McCune of McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, told The Investor on June 26, adding the trial date is set for

Nov. 6, 2018.

 

Meanwhile, Son and his attorney will work on gathering information and evidence in preparation for the

trial. McCune plans to ask written questions, conduct depositions and request documents to determine

the cause the defect and how long has Tesla known it, as well steps being taken to rectify it.

 

 

 

 

Related:

High chance for celebrity to win vs. Tesla on sudden acceleration

Tesla keeps mum on settling sudden acceleration case

 

 

On Dec. 30, Son filed a class action suit against Tesla in California, after discovering that several

cases of unintended acceleration involving the Model X -- that were similar to his accident -- had been

reported to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. He claims his Model X SUV

unexpectedly accelerated on full throttle while he was trying to park inside the garage in his Irvine

home, causing him to crash through the wall and into his living room, injuring himself and his son.

Since the initial complaint, more plaintiffs were added to the litigation that now includes both the Model

X SUV and Model S sedan.

 

Tesla, however, denied that its Model X -- once touted as “the safest SUV ever made” by its founder

Elon Musk -- suffers from defects. Insisting that the crash was entirely Son’s fault. Tesla also accused

him of blackmail using his celebrity status in Korea.

 

In response, Tesla filed a motion to dismiss half of the claim brought against the automaker accusing

that its cars are prone to sudden unintended acceleration.

 

A California federal judge on June 8 refused to drop the breach of warranty claim, saying drivers

sufficiently stated the vehicles may contain manufacturing defects. The judge, however, did rule in

favor of Tesla, and dismissed some of the plaintiff’s original claims, including charges of misleading

consumers through false advertisements.

 

McCune said he and Son are pleased with the court’s decision and are planning to provide additional

information to the court to amend their claims.

 

The ongoing lawsuit has sparked controversy in Korea, raising safety concerns about Tesla vehicles as

the automaker is speeding up expansion here. Last week, Tesla celebrated the official launch when it

delivered Model S 90D vehicles, its first car model on sale, to local customers.

http://www.theinvestor.co.kr/view.php?ud=20170626000803

Tesla Can't Dodge Sudden Acceleration Suit

Tesla Can't Dodge Sudden Acceleration

Suit

By Linda Chiem

Law360, New York (June 8, 2017, 6:22 PM EDT) -- A California federal judge Wednesday

refused to toss a proposed class action alleging some Tesla vehicles are prone to sudden

and unintended acceleration, saying the drivers sufficiently alleged a manufacturing defect

and breach of warranty claims. 

U.S. District Judge James V. Selna partly denied Tesla Inc.’s motion to dismiss half of the

claims brought against it under California, Ohio, Georgia, and North Carolina law in a

proposed class action first launched last December by South Korean musician and actor Ji

Chang Son claiming he and his son were injured when his Tesla Model X SUV crashed

through his garage and into his living room due to what he alleged was a sudden and

unintended acceleration while he was parking the vehicle.

In his order Wednesday, Judge Selna said the plaintiffs — who include four named plaintiffs

in addition to Son — had enough in their allegations that Tesla sold cars with a manufacturing

defect that breached the company’s basic vehicle limited warranty.

The plaintiffs had alleged that “the parts affected by the defect, including the accelerator

control system and automated emergency braking, were distributed by Tesla in the Model S

and Model X and are covered by the warranties Tesla provided to all purchasers and lessors

of its vehicles” and that Tesla breached its warranties by “providing vehicles that were not

fully operational, safe, or reliable; and not curing defects and nonconformities once they were

identified.”

“This language demonstrates that plaintiffs have pleaded that there is an express warranty in

writing, the accelerator system and the braking system contain defects, and the class

vehicles did not conform,” Judge Selna said.

While the judge said the drivers didn’t adequately plead that Tesla’s marketing statements —

i.e. Tesla’s specific representations on the safety of the Model S and Model X vehicles —

created additional warranties, he gave them a chance to tweak their claim to the extent that

they want to rely on their marketing statements theory.

Tesla, however, did manage to score dismissal of some of the specific state-law claims.

Judge Selna agreed to toss a claim under the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act brought

by one of the other named plaintiffs, Madhusudhana Shastrula, for lack of standing, as well

as a claim under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act that the judge allowed to be

amended.

He also tossed a claim brought under Georgia’s Fair Business Practices Act, saying

Shastrula was only added on as a plaintiff to the first amended complaint a couple of days

after his Model X suddenly and unintentionally accelerated Feb. 27, so that didn’t meet the

notice requirement.

But Judge Selna allowed the plaintiffs to amend their unjust enrichment claim in Georgia and

their claim under Georgia’s Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act to more adequately

allege that they would experience future harm from Tesla's alleged conduct without some

sort of injunctive relief.

Tesla had moved in April to dismiss about half of the proposed class action accusing it of

building and selling cars that are prone to sudden and unintended acceleration, saying the

plaintiffs’ warranty claims were baseless because they dealt with a design defect that wasn’t

covered by warranty.

The drivers had fired back at that dismissal bid, arguing that Tesla was improperly

deflecting blame onto the drivers themselves by saying the alleged incidents stemmed from

human error.

The plaintiffs said in their first amended complaint that all Model S sedans and Model X

SUVs were defectively designed or that Tesla didn’t develop a computer program that would

eliminate the danger of full-throttle acceleration, even if caused by human error.

Counsel for the plaintiffs and representatives for Tesla were not immediately available for

comment Thursday.

The drivers are represented by Richard D. McCune and David C. Wright of McCune Wright

Arevalo LLP and Benedict O. Kwon and Stephen L. Ram of Stradling Yocca Carlson &

Rauth PC.

Tesla is represented by Penelope A. Preovolos, Daniel James Wilson and Kimberly R.

Gosling of Morrison & Foerster LLP and by Sean Gates of Caris Lex PC.

The case is Ji Chang Son, et al., v. Tesla Motors Inc., case number 8:16-cv-02282, in the

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

--Additional reporting by John Kennedy and Steven Trader. Editing by Orlando Lorenzo.

https://www.law360.com/articles/932663/tesla-can-t-dodge-sudden-acceleration-suit

Drivers Slam Tesla For Blaming Sudden Acceleration On Them

Drivers Slam Tesla For Blaming Sudden Acceleration On Them

By John Kennedy

Law360, New York (April 26, 2017, 3:55 PM EDT)

https://www.law360.com/articles/917033/drivers-slam-tesla-for-blaming-sudden-acceleration-on-them

----------------------------------------------------

Drivers Slam Tesla For Blaming Sudden

Acceleration On Them

By John Kennedy

Law360, New York (April 26, 2017, 3:55 PM EDT) -- A proposed class of drivers claiming

Tesla’s vehicles are susceptible to sudden and unintended acceleration told a California

federal court Monday that the automaker shouldn’t be allowed to scrap about half the lawsuit

by improperly deflecting blame onto the drivers themselves.

Earlier this month, Tesla moved to dismiss 13 of the 27 claims in the first amended

complaint, arguing that each of the alleged incidents stemmed from human error, that it didn’t

need to design a fail-safe car and that the claims deal with a design defect that’s not covered

by warranty. The plaintiffs, led by South Korean actor Ji Chang Son, said Monday that

there’s more at play than just driver error.

“Though Tesla prides itself on innovation, describing itself as a ‘software company as much

as it is a hardware company,’ when confronted with a statistically alarming number of

crashes in which drivers report that without the driver applying the accelerator pedal, the

vehicle accelerated at full power on its own under remarkably consistent circumstances,

Tesla has opted to take a very traditional response to these claims — namely, to blame the

drivers,” the plaintiffs said. “Just as Toyota did before it, Tesla has steadfastly ignored the

overwhelming and mounting statistical evidence that its vehicles suffer from a dangerous

safety defect.”

Son initially brought the suit after he and a passenger were hurt when his Model X SUV

crashed through his garage and into his living room when it unexpectedly accelerated while

he was parking. The other named plaintiffs have made similar claims — that all Model S

sedans and Model X SUVs were defectively designed or that Tesla didn’t develop software

that would eliminate the risk of unintended acceleration, even if caused by human error.

In response to Tesla’s assertion that its data shows the drivers themselves caused the

acceleration, the drivers pointed to a NASA study focusing on reports of similar incidents to

the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration between 2000 and 2010. That study

found that sudden and unintended acceleration occurred in one of every 100,000 vehicles

each year, regardless of the acceleration’s ultimate cause.

In contrast, of the approximately 18,240 Model X SUVs that have been sold in the U.S.

between September 2015 and the end of last year, 13 have been reported to NHTSA or

Tesla as having experienced the issue — an annual rate of 71 incidents per 100,000

vehicles, the drivers said.

Previously, the most significant similar defect litigation in modern history — against Toyota —

involved the alleged defect affecting two in every 100,000 vehicles each year, the plaintiffs

said.

The drivers also argued that the consistency of the circumstances surrounding each incident

is evidence of a common defect.

“The vehicles are uniformly described as experiencing 100 percent full power acceleration,”

the drivers said. “If, as Tesla suggests in its motion, each and every one of these reported

instances of [sudden acceleration] were the result of driver error in misapplying the

accelerator pedal instead of the brake pedal, one would expect the driving circumstances in

which these [acceleration] events happen to vary along with the many different

circumstances in which people drive generally.”

Each of the 29 events listed in Monday’s filing occurred at slow speeds, usually while

stopping or starting at a traffic signal, or while parking. Seven of them reported “100 percent”

acceleration, five gave some variation of “maximum acceleration,” and three said they

“surged forward very fast.” Other reported acceleration rates included 98 percent, 97

percent, 84 percent, “on its own,” at a “high speed,” “without warning” and “while pressing the

brake pedal.”

Because of the slow speeds, there’s been no serious injury or death yet connected to the

alleged defect, but the drivers said that it’s “only a matter of time” before someone’s standing

in the path of a suddenly accelerating vehicle.

As for Tesla’s argument that it couldn’t have breached a warranty because its warranty only

covers material and workmanship defects, not design defects, the drivers said that their

complaint includes numerous allegations of manufacturing and material problems. They also

said that Tesla’s advertisements promising safety created other warranties that separately

cover design defects.

Tesla is also trying to get rid of Ohio and Georgia state law claims, but the drivers said

Monday that they’ve met all the pleading requirements for those allegations. One named

plaintiff, however, acknowledged that he doesn’t have standing to sue under one Ohio law

and didn’t oppose its dismissal.

The automaker could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

The drivers are represented by Richard D. McCune and David C. Wright of McCune Wright

Arevalo LLP and Benedict O. Kwon and Stephen L. Ram of Stradling Yocca Carlson &

Rauth PC.

Tesla is represented by Penelope A. Preovolos, Daniel James Wilson and Kimberly R.

Gosling of Morrison & Foerster LLP and by Sean Gates of Caris Lex PC.

The case is Ji Chang Son, et al., v. Tesla Motors Inc., case number 8:16-cv-02282, in the

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

--Editing by Rebecca Flanagan.

© 2017, Portfolio Media, Inc.

----------------------------------------------------