Ruling clears way for lawsuit brought against company over fatal crash in 2019 in which Stephen Banner was killed near Miami
Judge finds ‘reasonable evidence’ Tesla knew self-driving tech was defective::Ruling clears way for lawsuit brought against company over fatal crash in 2019 in which Stephen Banner was killed near Miami
Palm Beach county circuit court judge Reid Scott said he had found evidence that Tesla “engaged in a marketing strategy that painted the products as autonomous” and that Musk’s public statements about the technology “had a significant effect on the belief about the capabilities of the products”.
Judge Scott also found that the plaintiff, Banner’s wife, should be able to argue to jurors that Tesla’s warnings in its manuals and “clickwrap” were inadequate. He said the accident is “eerily similar” to a 2016 fatal crash involving Joshua Brown in which the Autopilot system failed to detect crossing trucks.
The bot that parses the articles creates a worse summary than you’d get by just reading random sentences.
In any case, we should note that this finding was reached after the recent media disclosures that Musk and Tesla deliberately created a false impression of the reliability of their autopilot capabilities. They were also deceptive in the capabilities of vehicles like the cybertruck and their semi, as well as things like range estimation, which might show a pattern of deliberate deception - demonstrating that it is a Tesla company practice across product lines. The clickthrough defense compared to what the CEO says on stage on massively publicized announcements sounds to me a bit like Trump’s defense that he signed his financial statements but noted that by doing so he wasn’t actually confirming anything and the people who believed him are the ones to blame.
Given his groundless lawsuit against media matters and his threats against the ADL, I think Elon might have started circling the drain.
Ah, that makes a lot more sense. Shouldn’t trust the bot.
I’d only add that the “click through” is actually a well laid out screen with info graphic showing the problem and a few lines of text.
They’d be hard pressed to say that warning was difficult or hard for anyone to read or understand.
Unrelated but relevant, but like GDPR where privacy explanations need to be short, concise and easy to understand, I’d say the click through thing was more than adequate and would exceed those.
But as you point out, that’s only a part of it.
Edit: trying to find an image of it for reference, but my GoogleFu is failing me :(
Edit: to further clarify, I’m only talking about the radar and stopped vehicles in terms above. The whole agreement I think was larger in some places, but my memory is a little foggy on that without images.
Here’s the basis of the finding:
The bot that parses the articles creates a worse summary than you’d get by just reading random sentences.
In any case, we should note that this finding was reached after the recent media disclosures that Musk and Tesla deliberately created a false impression of the reliability of their autopilot capabilities. They were also deceptive in the capabilities of vehicles like the cybertruck and their semi, as well as things like range estimation, which might show a pattern of deliberate deception - demonstrating that it is a Tesla company practice across product lines. The clickthrough defense compared to what the CEO says on stage on massively publicized announcements sounds to me a bit like Trump’s defense that he signed his financial statements but noted that by doing so he wasn’t actually confirming anything and the people who believed him are the ones to blame.
Given his groundless lawsuit against media matters and his threats against the ADL, I think Elon might have started circling the drain.
Ah, that makes a lot more sense. Shouldn’t trust the bot.
I’d only add that the “click through” is actually a well laid out screen with info graphic showing the problem and a few lines of text.
They’d be hard pressed to say that warning was difficult or hard for anyone to read or understand.
Unrelated but relevant, but like GDPR where privacy explanations need to be short, concise and easy to understand, I’d say the click through thing was more than adequate and would exceed those.
But as you point out, that’s only a part of it.
Edit: trying to find an image of it for reference, but my GoogleFu is failing me :(
Edit: to further clarify, I’m only talking about the radar and stopped vehicles in terms above. The whole agreement I think was larger in some places, but my memory is a little foggy on that without images.