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>
WLF Asks Eleventh Circuit to Reverse Punitive Damages Award Against Tesla - Washington Legal Foundation

WLF asked the Eleventh Circuit to reverse a $200 million punitive- damages award in a products-liability case against Tesla.

Who We Are

Legal Policy Advisory Board
A select group of legal professionals that provides informal guidance on a volunteer basis.

Annual Report
Our yearly look back at litigation and legal studies activities undertaken in the public interest.

WLF Senior Staff
Descriptions of WLF’s senior leadership.

Featured
How a seemingly unexciting case on retirement plans could have massive consequences
Read More

What We Do

Litigation
Litigation is the backbone of WLF’s public-interest efforts. WLF litigates before state and federal courts and agencies nationwide.

Cases

Submit an Amicus Request

Regulatory Matters

Month in Review

Legal Studies
Successfully advocating for a legal and regulatory environment that fosters free enterprise requires the timely dissemination and steady reinforcement of compelling arguments and ideas to those lawyers and jurists who shape the law.

Publications

WLF Legal Pulse blog

Programming

Our Issues
WLF’s vital work to uphold the legal principles that support our free enterprise system are categorized into:

Combating Litigation Abuse

Defending the Rule of Law

Opposing Overregulation

Protecting Economic Liberties

News

Press Releases
Announcements of litigation filings and other WLF developments.

Media Mentions
See where our work has been mentioned in the media.

Featured Case
National Labor Relations Board v. State of California
On September 2, 2026, WLF joined a coalition of concerned amici in urging the Eastern District of California to fully enjoin enforcement of AB 288, a state law that injects...
Read More

Get Involved

Job Opportunities
Join the WLF team.

Pro Bono
Learn how you can volunteer to advance our mission.

Donate
WLF relies upon tax-deductible contributions as a 501(c)(3) charity.

Contact Us

Featured
“Possess” or “Collect” under Illinois’ BIPA: Seventh Circuit Resolves Trial-Court Split
Resolving a split among its federal district courts, the 7th Circuit held that a company does not "possess" or "collect" biometric data under Illinois law by supplying software that processes such data on a user's device.
Read More

Donate

Donate

Press Release

July 9, 2026

Press Release

WLF Asks Eleventh Circuit to Reverse Punitive Damages Award Against Tesla

Issues:

Combating Litigation Abuse
:
Product Liability / Toxic Torts
,
Punitive Damages

Case:

Benavides v. Telsa, Inc.

Download the PDF

“Punitive damages are meant to punish wrongdoing. The jury found the driver primarily responsible for the accident. A $200 million punitive award against Telsa has no legal basis.”
—Jay DeSanto, WLF Senior Litigation Counsel

Click
HERE
to read WLF’s brief.

Washington, DC—Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) today asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to reverse a $200 million punitive-damages award in a products-liability case against Tesla. WLF contends that the award violates Florida law and due process because Tesla did not engage in any kind of reprehensible conduct to warrant punishment.

The case arises from a collision involving a 2019 Tesla Model S equipped with “Autopilot,” a driver-assistance system featuring adaptive cruise control, collision warnings, and lane-centering assistance. Although the jury found the driver primarily responsible for the accident—assigning him 67% of the fault—it nonetheless imposed a $200 million punitive-damages award against Tesla.

In its amicus brief urging reversal, WLF argues that punitive damages are unavailable as a matter of law because Tesla adhered to industry standards and worked to mitigate safety risks, while primary fault for the accident rested with the driver. WLF further argues that the punitive award exceeds both Florida’s statutory cap and constitutional due-process limits. It warns that expanding punitive liability under these circumstances will discourage the development of innovative vehicle-safety technologies that have the potential to make the roadways safer.

Related Cases

September 4, 2026

Fontaine v. Philip Morris USA Inc.

On September 4, 2026, WLF asked the U.S. Supreme Court to grant review and overrule Altria Group, Inc. v. Good, a 2008 decision that held state consumer protection laws targeting cigarette marketing are not preempted by federal law. In its amicus brief, WLF contends that the Massachusetts high court used...

June 23, 2025

Gill v. Exxon Mobil Corporation

On June 23, 2025, WLF joined a coalition of concerned amici on a brief asking the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to rein in excessive noneconomic damages awards. In a brief to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, amici argue that the jury’s oversized award, lacking punitive or economic damages, exemplifies a troubling trend...

July 19, 2023

Bert Co. v. Turk

On July 19, 2023, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania declined to cap punitive-damages awards. This was a setback for WLF, which filed an amicus brief supporting the defendants. In deepening a split, the court held that the punitive-damages ratio relevant to the Fourteenth Amendment is calculated per defendant rather than...

Related Content

Legal Backgrounders

March 9, 2007

Philip Morris USA v. Williams: Another Brick In The Punitive Damages Wall

By Evan M. Tager,a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of the law firm Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw, LLP. Mr. Tager assisted in the preparation of the petition for certiorari and merits briefs in Williams.

Monographs

October 29, 2004

A Punitive Damages Primer: Post-State Farm Strategies

By Christina J. Imre, a partner with the San Francisco law firm Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold LLP. Foreword by Laurel Thurston, Senior Counsel and Assistant Vice President, Republic Indemnity Company.

Conversations with...

December 8, 2003

Conversations With: Punitive Damages

Features The Honorable Dick Thornburgh, Counsel to the law firm Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP moderating a discussion with Andrew L. Frey, and Evan M. Tager , partners with the law firm Mayer,Brown,Rowe & Maw L.L.P.

Subscribe

2009 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20036

© 2026 WLF. All rights reserved.

By visiting our website, you agree to the use of tracking technologies, such as cookies, to improve site functionality, analyze web traffic, and record how you interact with our website.

OK
</reference>

<statements>
1. The fault split is analytically central because the jury assigned the primary fault to the human driver.
2. 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%.
3. The defence-side position is also on the record
4. The Washington Legal Foundation, in a July 2026 amicus brief to the Eleventh Circuit, argues that punitive damages are unavailable as a matter of law because the jury assigned primary fault to the driver, that Tesla adhered to industry standards and worked to mitigate safety risks, and that the award exceeds Florida’s statutory cap and constitutional due-process limits
5. 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
6. 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
7. 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.