In a dramatic legal battle that has drawn national attention, Tesla was found partly liable for a fatal 2019 crash in Florida after a jury determined the company withheld crucial electronic data—data that was ultimately recovered by a hacker enlisted by the victims' family. The case, which has spotlighted the ongoing debate over the safety and transparency of Tesla's Autopilot system, culminated in a $243 million verdict against the electric carmaker in July 2025, according to reports by The Washington Post and the BBC.
The crash occurred at a T-intersection in the Florida Keys, where 22-year-old Naibel Benavides Leon and her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo, were struck by a Tesla Model S operating on Autopilot. Benavides Leon was killed, and Angulo suffered life-altering injuries. The driver, identified in court as Mr. McGee, lost control of his vehicle after dropping his phone, and neither he nor the vehicle’s Autopilot system engaged the brakes in time to prevent the collision.
As the wrongful death lawsuit unfolded, the victims’ family and Angulo faced a major obstacle: Tesla claimed it could not provide the electronic data key—the so-called "collision snapshot"—from the vehicle, which records data from the car’s cameras and sensors in the moments before and after a crash. This data is often critical for reconstructing accidents and assigning liability. According to The Washington Post, Tesla asserted it did not possess the data, a stance that left the plaintiffs scrambling for evidence.
But in a remarkable twist, the plaintiffs hired a hacker who managed to decode a chip salvaged from the wrecked Model S. The hacker’s efforts uncovered the missing data, which Tesla had said was unavailable. The automaker later acknowledged in court that the data had, in fact, been stored on its own servers all along. This revelation raised serious questions about Tesla’s transparency and willingness to cooperate with legal proceedings, especially in cases involving the safety of its much-touted Autopilot feature.
Further complicating matters, it emerged that the "collision snapshot" had been uploaded to Tesla's servers shortly after the crash, and the local copy on the car was marked for deletion. According to court documents cited by The Washington Post, "someone at Tesla probably took 'affirmative action to delete' the copy of the data on the company’s central database." This allegation has fueled suspicions about the company’s data retention practices and its approach to liability in accidents involving its vehicles.
The recovered data became a linchpin in the trial. In July 2025, a jury found Tesla partly responsible for the crash and ordered the company to pay $243 million in damages to the victims’ family. Tesla’s legal team responded by seeking relief from the ruling, arguing that the jury’s decision conflicted with Florida law and due process protections. They also claimed that public statements made by CEO Elon Musk may have contributed to misunderstandings about the true level of autonomy in Tesla vehicles.
Attorney Brett Schreiber, representing the plaintiffs, told the BBC, “Tesla designed Autopilot only for controlled-access highways yet deliberately chose not to restrict drivers from using it elsewhere, alongside Elon Musk telling the world Autopilot drove better than humans.” Schreiber’s remarks underscored a central issue in the trial: the tension between Tesla’s marketing of Autopilot and the system’s actual capabilities and limitations.
The company, for its part, has maintained that the driver, McGee, who manually accelerated just before the collision, should be held solely accountable. Tesla turned down a $60 million settlement proposal earlier in the litigation, opting instead to take its chances in court—a gamble that ultimately proved costly. Following the verdict, the plaintiffs' attorneys moved to recover legal fees from Tesla, arguing that under Florida law, they are entitled to cover costs accrued since May 30, 2025, when the settlement offer was first made.
This case is just the latest in a series of legal and regulatory challenges facing Tesla over its Autopilot system. The company has previously been quick to provide customer data stored on its servers to counter claims made against it. However, in this instance, Tesla’s initial refusal to produce the data—and the subsequent revelation that the data existed—has drawn criticism from safety advocates and legal experts. The situation has also reignited debate over how much responsibility automakers should bear for crashes involving semi-autonomous systems.
According to TheFly, the evidence presented in court not only established Tesla’s partial liability but also highlighted the broader issue of data access in modern vehicles. As cars become increasingly computerized, crash investigations often hinge on the ability to retrieve and interpret electronic data. When automakers control access to this information, it can tip the scales of justice in their favor—or, as in this case, lead to dramatic courtroom reversals.
The trial also brought to light the confusion—and sometimes, overconfidence—surrounding Tesla’s Autopilot branding. While the system is designed for use on controlled-access highways, it does not prevent drivers from activating it on other types of roads. This flexibility, combined with high-profile statements from Musk about Autopilot’s capabilities, has led some drivers to overestimate the system’s ability to handle complex driving scenarios without human intervention.
The Florida crash is a stark reminder of the real-world consequences of such misunderstandings. Neither McGee nor the Autopilot system applied the brakes in time to avoid hitting Benavides Leon and Angulo, who were standing near a parked SUV at the intersection. The tragedy has fueled calls for clearer labeling, stricter usage restrictions, and more transparent data practices from Tesla and other automakers developing autonomous driving technologies.
As Tesla seeks to overturn the verdict or secure a new trial, the outcome of this case is likely to reverberate across the automotive industry. It raises important questions about corporate responsibility, driver accountability, and the role of technology in public safety. For the families affected by the crash, the legal battle has been about more than just compensation—it’s been a fight for answers and accountability in an era where cars are as much computers as they are machines.
The events in Florida serve as a cautionary tale for both automakers and consumers, underscoring the need for transparency, rigorous safety standards, and honest communication about what today’s technology can—and cannot—do.
