You will be provided with a reference and some statements. Please determine whether each statement is 'supported', 'unsupported', or 'unknown' with respect to the reference. Please note:
First, assess whether the reference contains any valid content. If the reference contains no valid information, such as a 'page not found' message, then all statements should be considered 'unknown'.
If the reference is valid, for a given statement: if the facts or data it contains can be found entirely or partially within the reference, it is considered 'supported' (data accepts rounding); if all facts and data in the statement cannot be found in the reference, it is considered 'unsupported'.

You should return the result in a JSON list format, where each item in the list contains the statement's index and the judgment result, for example:
[
    {
        "idx": 1,
        "result": "supported"
    },
    {
        "idx": 2,
        "result": "unsupported"
    }
]

Below are the reference and statements:
<reference>
Judge rejects Tesla's appeal in $243 million Autopilot fatality case

Federal judge upholds $243M verdict against Tesla in fatal 2019 Autopilot crash, finding evidence supports jury decision.

Latest News

Daily Automotive News

Global Industry News

Recalls & Safety Updates

Market Trends

Dealership Ops

Retail Trends

Management

Sales & Marketing

F&I

Fixed-Ops

Used Car Market

Technology

Autonomous Vehicles

Mobility

Safety & Compliance

Market Insights

Market Reports

Data & Analytics

Economic Trends

Mergers & Acquisitions

Fleet & Commercial

Forecasts & Research

Reviews

New Car Reviews

Comparisons

Buying Guides

Shows

Inside Automotive

Executive Profile

CBT Now

F&I Today

Future of Automotive

Inside M&A

Lessons in Leadership

Loyalty-Based Sales Strategies

Marketing Matters

Mind Your Own Business

Service Drive

Training Camp

Compliance That Works

Driving Solutions

Women Driving the Industry

Podcast

CBT Live

Inside Automotive

Executive Profile

Driving Solutions

Events

40 Under 40

Auto Leadership Summit

Event Coverage

Remarkable Leaders in F&I

Advertise

TSLA
356.580
-2.39%
GM
85.370
-1.79%
F
13.508
-0.3525%
RIVN
15.540
-0.32%
CYD
33.750
-1.25%
HMC
32.210
-0.28%
TM
195.470
-2.09%
CVNA
66.890
-3.98%
PAG
216.110
-1.04%
LAD
345.910
-14.36%
AN
203.610
-1.98%
GPI
275.450
-8.56%
ABG
205.150
-3.76%
SAH
74.780
-1.51%
TSLA
356.580
-2.39%
GM
85.370
-1.79%
F
13.508
-0.3525%
RIVN
15.540
-0.32%
CYD
33.750
-1.25%
HMC
32.210
-0.28%
TM
195.470
-2.09%
CVNA
66.890
-3.98%
PAG
216.110
-1.04%
LAD
345.910
-14.36%
AN
203.610
-1.98%
GPI
275.450
-8.56%
ABG
205.150
-3.76%
SAH
74.780
-1.51%
TSLA
356.580
-2.39%
GM
85.370
-1.79%
F
13.508
-0.3525%
RIVN
15.540
-0.32%
CYD
33.750
-1.25%
HMC
32.210
-0.28%
TM
195.470
-2.09%
CVNA
66.890
-3.98%
PAG
216.110
-1.04%
LAD
345.910
-14.36%
AN
203.610
-1.98%
GPI
275.450
-8.56%
ABG
205.150
-3.76%
SAH
74.780
-1.51%

Latest News

Daily Automotive News

Global Industry News

Recalls & Safety Updates

Market Trends

Dealership Ops

Retail Trends

Management

Sales & Marketing

F&I

Fixed-Ops

Used Car Market

Technology

Autonomous Vehicles

Mobility

Safety & Compliance

Market Insights

Market Reports

Data & Analytics

Economic Trends

Mergers & Acquisitions

Fleet & Commercial

Forecasts & Research

Reviews

New Car Reviews

Comparisons

Buying Guides

Shows

Inside Automotive

Executive Profile

CBT Now

F&I Today

Future of Automotive

Inside M&A

Lessons in Leadership

Loyalty-Based Sales Strategies

Marketing Matters

Mind Your Own Business

Service Drive

Training Camp

Compliance That Works

Driving Solutions

Women Driving the Industry

Podcast

CBT Live

Inside Automotive

Executive Profile

Driving Solutions

Events

40 Under 40

Auto Leadership Summit

Event Coverage

Remarkable Leaders in F&I

Global Industry News

Manufacturers

Auto Dealer Associations

Mergers & Acquisitions

Jobs

Newsletter

About CBT News

Advertise

Contribute/Whitepaper

Press Releases

Contact Us

facebook

instagram

Linkedin

TikTok

Twitter

Youtube

Judge rejects Tesla’s appeal in $243 million Autopilot fatality case

A federal judge ruled that trial evidence supports the August 2025 jury decision finding Tesla 33% responsible for a 2019 fatal crash involving an Autopilot-equipped Model S.

By

Ashby Lincoln

February 23, 2026

On the Dash:

ADAS liability exposure remains significant, reinforcing the need for clear feature explanations at delivery.

The $200 million punitive award highlights jury sensitivity to perceived safety gaps in emerging tech.

Ongoing Autopilot litigation may affect consumer trust, regulatory discussions, and dealership risk assessments.

A federal judge rejected Tesla’s request to overturn a $243 million jury verdict stemming from a 2019 crash involving an Autopilot-equipped Model S that killed a 22-year-old woman and severely injured her boyfriend.

U.S.
District Judge Beth Bloom
said in a decision made public Friday that the trial evidence “more than supports” the August 2025 verdict and that Tesla raised no new arguments warranting reversal. However, the automaker is expected to appeal.

Sign up for CBT News’ daily newsletter and get the latest industry stories delivered straight to your inbox
.

The case arose from a crash on April 25, 2019, in Key Largo. George McGee was driving his 2019 Tesla Model S at approximately 62 mph through an intersection while bending down to retrieve a dropped phone. His vehicle struck an SUV parked on the shoulder beside which Naibel Benavides Leon and Dillon Angulo were standing. Benavides was killed. McGee previously reached a settlement with the plaintiffs.

In August 2025, a federal jury found Tesla 33% responsible for the crash. Jurors awarded $19.5 million in compensatory damages to Benavides’ estate and $23.1 million to Angulo, along with $200 million in punitive damages to be divided between them, bringing the total to $243 million. The decision marked the first federal jury verdict involving a fatal accident tied to Tesla’s Autopilot system.

Tesla argued that McGee alone was at fault, that the Model S was not defective, and that the verdict defied common sense. The company also maintained that punitive damages were unwarranted under Florida law.

For dealers and industry stakeholders, the ruling underscores the legal and financial risks automakers face as advanced driver-assistance systems continue to evolve. While Tesla has confronted multiple lawsuits over its self-driving technology, previous cases had been resolved or dismissed before reaching trial. Musk has long positioned Tesla as a leader in autonomous driving for private vehicles and robotaxis, making the outcome of appeals closely watched across the retail automotive sector.

Weekly Newsletter

Get the latest automotive industry news and trends delivered straight to your inbox.

Tags
dealership news

electric vehicles

Retail Automotive

car business

Tesla

EV news

More from EVs & Technology

DGDG bets on its people and affordable inventory

Jaelyn Campbell
-
September 14, 2026

For Del Grande Dealer Group (DGDG), navigating an uneven market starts with the parts of the business it can control. CEO Jeremy Beaver joins us on today’s CBT Live segment...

EVs & Technology

CBT Live

GM targets 2029 for domestic sodium-ion battery production

Jaelyn Campbell
-
September 14, 2026

On the Dash:

GM expects commercial production of sodium-ion battery cells with Peak Energy around 2029, initially targeting energy storage systems.
The automaker is investing $900 million in new battery...

EVs & Technology

Articles

Greg Uland explains the role of AI agents in modern dealerships

Jaelyn Campbell
-
September 11, 2026

The next major dealership efficiency gains may not come from adding more people, but from using the people and technology dealers already have better. That was one of the key...

CBT Live

EVs & Technology

What hydrogen vehicles could mean for car dealerships in the next decade

Jack Shaw
-
September 10, 2026

The automotive industry is currently focused on electric vehicles. However, hydrogen fuel cell cars are also emerging, providing a viable alternative in the market. Many forward-thinking dealers are making way...

EVs & Technology

Articles

Previous article

Next article

Latest Articles

Latest Articles

09/15/26

What dealers should know about today’s oil and gas market

Latest Articles

09/15/26

How Lasco Ford rode Ford Blue Advantage to CPO success

Latest Articles

09/15/26

Ford expands F-150 Carhartt package, Chinese vehicle entry looks unlikely, Service scheduling improves across industry

Latest Articles

09/15/26

Ford expands F-150 lineup with $4,195 Carhartt package for 2027

Latest Articles

09/15/26

Chinese vehicle entry looks unlikely as U.S. brands face a shifting market

Latest Articles

09/15/26

Service scheduling improves industry-wide, Volkswagen dealers lead the pack

Latest Articles

09/15/26

Hyundai moves toward autonomous driving, partners with Nvidia on 2028 driver-assist system

Latest Articles

09/15/26

The hidden security gaps putting dealers at risk

Latest Articles

09/15/26

4 ways to sell more cars when the showroom slows down

Latest Articles

09/15/26

Why your dealership needs daily training

Load More

About

Contribute

Contact

Advertise

Press Releases

Terms and Conditions

Privacy Policy

Sitemap

facebook

instagram

Linkedin

TikTok

Twitter

Youtube

© 2026 CBT News. ® All Rights Reserved. Use Powered by
Scylla Technologies

You count on CBT News for reliable reporting and clear, industry-focused insights. We use your personal information to improve site performance, enhance our services, support our marketing efforts, and deliver content and advertising that fit your interests. By selecting the button on the right, you can manage your privacy preferences. For more details, please review our Privacy Notice and learn more about our Cookie Policy.

Accept

Reject

Close GDPR Cookie Settings

Privacy Overview

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Powered by
GDPR Cookie Compliance

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

Enable or Disable Cookies

Enabled

Disabled

Enable All

Save Settings
</reference>

<statements>
1. U.S. tort law permits shared fault where driver inattention coexists with design, warning, or marketing evidence.
2. The most developed U.S. case in the available evidence is Benavides Leon v. Tesla in the Southern District of Florida.
3. A trade-press account reports that the crash occurred on 25 April 2019 in Key Largo: George McGee was driving a 2019 Model S at approximately 62 mph through an intersection while bending down to retrieve a dropped phone, Autopilot was engaged, and the vehicle struck an SUV parked on the shoulder beside which Naibel Benavides Leon and Dillon Angulo were standing.
4. Benavides was killed, Angulo was severely injured, and McGee previously settled with the plaintiffs.
5. In August 2025, a federal jury found Tesla 33% responsible, awarded $19.5 million to the estate and $23.1 million to Angulo, and imposed $200 million in punitive damages, for a total of $243 million.
6. The account describes the decision as the first federal jury verdict involving a fatal accident tied to Tesla’s Autopilot system.
7. U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom later rejected Tesla’s post-trial motion, saying the trial evidence “more than supports” the verdict, while noting that Tesla was expected to appeal.
8. The fault split is analytically central because the jury assigned the primary fault to the human driver.
9. CBT News reports the implied 67% share fell on the driver, and the Washington Legal Foundation amicus brief states the jury assigned the driver 67%.
10. they show the evidentiary theory that supported the 33% manufacturer share
11. The defence-side position is also on the record
12. Tesla argued that McGee alone was at fault, that the Model S was not defective, that the verdict defied common sense, and that punitive damages were unwarranted under Florida law
13. The live doctrinal question is therefore not whether the driver was negligent—the jury found he was—but whether a manufacturer’s post-market conduct, marketing, driver-monitoring design, and response to known misuse can independently justify punitive exposure even when the human driver bears most crash fault
14. The Benavides verdict suggests that U.S. juries may treat Level 2 misuse as shared fault when the system’s design, warnings, and marketing make misuse foreseeable
15. It applies to products placed on the market or put into service after 8 December 2026, so it does not govern older vehicles such as the 2019 Tesla in Benavides or the earliest DRIVE PILOT vehicles
16. U.S. product-liability and comparative-fault litigation; Benavides jury assigned 33% to Tesla and 67% to driver
17. The U.S. Benavides record shows a comparative-fault split in which driver inattention remains dominant, but manufacturer design and marketing can still carry substantial liability.
18. That is materially different from the Benavides allocation, which was governed by Florida tort law and a jury’s fault assessment, not by the post-2026 EU directive.
19. Benavides illustrates this: the jury assigned most fault to the driver, but the manufacturer still bore a substantial share, and the punitive-damages question remains live on appeal
20. The main uncertainties are empirical and legal: the available evidence does not establish a final appellate outcome in Benavides, does not provide comprehensive real-world ADAS effectiveness data, does not reproduce the full UNECE R157 text, and does not record the terms of any manufacturer indemnification commitment
</statements>

Begin the assessment now. Output only the JSON list, without any conversational text or explanations.