Tuesday, August 11, 2026
LIVEThe Unrelenting Cyber Battle: Hacking Threats and the Imperative of Robust Data Protection///Navigating the Cyber Labyrinth: Bolstering Defenses Against Evolving Hacking Threats///The Dual Front War: Battling Hacking and Bolstering Data Protection in the Digital Age///The Ever-Evolving Cyber Threat Landscape: Navigating Hacking and Fortifying Data Protection///The Unseen Battle: Fortifying Data in an Age of Relentless Hacking///The Unseen War: Hacking's Relentless Advance and the Imperative of Data Protection///The Evolving Threat Landscape: Hacking, Data Protection, and the Imperative for Proactive Security///Navigating the Digital Minefield: Bolstering Data Protection in an Era of Relentless Hacking///The Dual Fronts of Digital Defense: Combating Hacking and Fortifying Data Protection///Hacking's New Frontier: Fortifying Data Protection in the Age of Advanced Cyber Threats///The Dual Front: Navigating Hacking Threats and Fortifying Data Protection in the Digital Age///Navigating the Digital Gauntlet: The Evolving Nexus of Hacking and Data Protection///The Unrelenting Cyber Battle: Hacking Threats and the Imperative of Robust Data Protection///Navigating the Cyber Labyrinth: Bolstering Defenses Against Evolving Hacking Threats///The Dual Front War: Battling Hacking and Bolstering Data Protection in the Digital Age///The Ever-Evolving Cyber Threat Landscape: Navigating Hacking and Fortifying Data Protection///The Unseen Battle: Fortifying Data in an Age of Relentless Hacking///The Unseen War: Hacking's Relentless Advance and the Imperative of Data Protection///The Evolving Threat Landscape: Hacking, Data Protection, and the Imperative for Proactive Security///Navigating the Digital Minefield: Bolstering Data Protection in an Era of Relentless Hacking///The Dual Fronts of Digital Defense: Combating Hacking and Fortifying Data Protection///Hacking's New Frontier: Fortifying Data Protection in the Age of Advanced Cyber Threats///The Dual Front: Navigating Hacking Threats and Fortifying Data Protection in the Digital Age///Navigating the Digital Gauntlet: The Evolving Nexus of Hacking and Data Protection///
Subscribe
Cyber Security
Independent · Digital
Thehackingpost
RSSSubscribe
CybersecurityAI-assisted

Tesla's Autopilot was not to blame for fatal 2019 Model 3 crash, jury findsThe crash killed the car's 37-year-old driver and severely injured two passengers.

A California jury has found that Tesla was not at fault for a fatal 2019 crash that allegedly involved its Autopilot system, in the first US trial yet for a case claiming its software directly caused a death. The lawsuit alleged Tesla knowingly shipped…

WBy William HayesNov 03, 20232 min read

A California jury has found that Tesla was not at fault for a fatal 2019 crash that allegedly involved its Autopilot system, in the first US trial yet for a case claiming its software directly caused a death. The lawsuit alleged Tesla knowingly shipped out cars with a defective Autopilot system, leading to a crash that killed a Model 3 owner and severely injured two passengers, Reuters reports.

Per the lawsuit, 37-year-old Micah Lee was driving his Tesla Model 3 on a highway outside of Los Angeles at 65 miles per hour when it turned sharply off the road and slammed into a palm tree before catching fire. Lee died in the crash. The company was sued for $400 million plus punitive damages by Lee’s estate and the two surviving victims, including a boy who was 8 years old at the time and was disemboweled in the accident, according to an earlier report from Reuters .

Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that Tesla sold Lee defective, “experimental” software when he bought a Model 3 in 2019 that was billed to have full self-driving capability. The FSD system was and still is in beta. In his opening statement, their attorney Jonathan Michaels also said that the “excessive steering command is a known issue at Tesla.”

A fix to prevent it from ever happening was engineered as a result of that analysis, according to the company.
William Hayes · Thehackingpost

Tesla’s defense argued that there was no such defect, and that an analysis cited by the plaintiffs’ lawyers identifying a steering issue was actually looking for problems that were theoretically possible. A fix to prevent it from ever happening was engineered as a result of that analysis, according to the company. Tesla blamed human error for the crash, pointing to tests that showed Lee had consumed alcohol before getting in the car, and argued that there’s no certainty Autopilot was in use at the time.

The jury ultimately found there was no defect, and Tesla was cleared on Tuesday. Tesla has faced lawsuits over its Autopilot system in the past, but this is the first involving a fatality. It’s scheduled to go on trial for several others in the coming months, and today's ruling is likely to set the tone for those ahead.

Advertisement

Based on reporting by www.engadget.com.

AI transparency. This article was produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and published under human editorial oversight. AI systems can make mistakes. Read how we use AI (EU AI Act, Art. 50).
Related Stories
Cybersecurity

Why Fintech Banking Platforms Are Reducing Operational Costs by 40%

Paige Monroe · Mar 26, 2026
Cybersecurity

Dogecoin Price Prediction: SHIB Burns 172M Tokens as Pepeto Exchange Earns From Every Trade

Eric Wallace · Mar 26, 2026
Cybersecurity

Solana Price Prediction: SOL Holds $86 With Commodity Status as Pepeto Targets Bigger Returns

Zachary Burns · Mar 26, 2026
Cybersecurity

Open Directory Malware Campaign Uses Obfuscated VBS, PNG Loaders and RAT Payloads

Joseph Cain · Mar 26, 2026