A federal judge upholds a $243 million verdict against Tesla, Inc. over a fatal 2019 Autopilot crash in Florida, marking a pivotal legal moment for autonomous vehicle liability.
 |
| The ruling, tied to a 2019 crash that killed a 22-year-old woman, represents the first federal jury verdict in a fatal case involving Tesla’s Autopilot system and sets up a likely appeal. Image: CH |
KEY LARGO, Florida, United States — February 20, 2026:
A federal judge’s decision to uphold a $243 million jury verdict against Tesla, Inc. is reverberating across the automotive and technology sectors, raising urgent questions about corporate responsibility in the age of semi-autonomous driving.
U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom ruled that the evidence presented at trial “more than supports” the jury’s findings in connection with a 2019 fatal crash involving a Tesla Model S equipped with Autopilot. Her order rejected the company’s attempt to overturn the August 2025 verdict and allowed the full damages award — including $200 million in punitive damages — to stand.
The case stems from an April 25, 2019, collision in Key Largo, Florida. Driver George McGee was traveling about 62 mph through an intersection while reaching down to retrieve a dropped cellphone when his 2019 Model S struck two pedestrians standing beside their parked SUV on the shoulder.
Naibel Benavides Leon, 22, was killed. Her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo, suffered serious injuries.
Jurors determined that Tesla bore 33% of the responsibility for the crash. They awarded $19.5 million in compensatory damages to Benavides’ estate and $23.1 million to Angulo. The remaining $200 million in punitive damages — the bulk of the verdict — signals the jury’s conclusion that Tesla’s conduct warranted punishment beyond compensation. McGee previously reached a settlement with the plaintiffs.
Legal experts note that this marked the first federal jury verdict involving a fatal accident linked to Tesla’s Autopilot system, giving the ruling outsized significance.
Tesla argued that the driver alone was at fault, that the vehicle was not defective, and that punitive damages were not justified under Florida law. The company also challenged procedural and evidentiary rulings from the trial.
Judge Bloom’s decision underscores the high threshold required to overturn a jury verdict. By affirming that the evidence supported the jury’s allocation of fault and damages, the court reinforced the legitimacy of jurors’ conclusions about both product design and corporate conduct.
Tesla, led by CEO Elon Musk, is expected to appeal. On appeal, the company may focus on constitutional arguments regarding the size of the punitive damages award — a common battleground in high-stakes product liability cases.
Beyond the financial implications, the case places Tesla’s Autopilot branding and deployment strategy under renewed scrutiny.
Tesla maintains that Autopilot is an advanced driver-assistance system requiring active supervision, not a fully autonomous solution. Plaintiffs’ attorneys, however, argued that the technology was deployed without adequate safeguards and that its marketing created foreseeable misuse risks.
The jury’s allocation of 33% fault to Tesla suggests that responsibility for crashes involving driver-assistance systems may be shared — not solely borne by drivers — when corporate decisions contribute to risk.
For the broader auto industry, the ruling signals that civil litigation may become a powerful force shaping the evolution of automated driving technology. As regulators in the United States and elsewhere continue refining oversight, juries are increasingly asked to weigh technical design choices against real-world consequences.
While $243 million is manageable for a company of Tesla’s size, the reputational impact may be more significant. Large punitive awards can influence investor sentiment and encourage additional lawsuits from plaintiffs pursuing similar claims.
The case also highlights a shifting legal landscape in North America, where courts are confronting questions once confined to science fiction: When a car assists in driving decisions, who ultimately bears responsibility?
As the appeal process unfolds, the outcome could shape not only Tesla’s legal exposure but also industry standards for transparency, safety testing, and marketing of driver-assistance systems worldwide.
In the meantime, the Florida ruling stands as a stark reminder that technological innovation does not insulate companies from accountability — especially when lives are lost.