Introduction
On May 11th, 2018 Heather
Lommatzsch slammed
into the back of a parked fire truck when her Tesla Model S failed to stop
while engaged in autopilot mode. She
states the feature “failed to engage as advertised,” as she was going
approximately 60 mph. South Jordan
Police issued Mrs. Lommatzsch a Class C Misdemeanor for failure to keep a
proper lookout while operating a motor vehicle, the driver stated to police she
was looking at her cellphone and the data from the car stated she had not touch
any instruments for 90 second prior to two second before impact. Mrs. Lommatzsch did suffer a broken foot and
the car was totaled. Mrs. Lommatzsch filed
a lawsuit in the Third District Court for the State of Utah on September 5th,
2018:
|
The
complaint
Mrs. Lommatzsch’s claim is based on Negligence
(Tesla), Strict Liability (Tesla), Breach of Warranty (Tesla), and Negligence
(Service King). Mrs. Lommatzsch seeks
“damages in excess of $300,000.00” which places it in Tier 3. Utah
State Law states that Tesla, Inc. and Service King have 30
days to respond complaint
The
Jurisdiction
The claim states that via U.C.A.
§ 78A-5-102 the Third District Court for The State
of Utah has the jurisdiction to hear the case filed, “The district court has original jurisdiction in all matters
civil and criminal, not excepted in the Utah Constitution and not prohibited by
law.”
The Venue
The claim states via U.C.A. §78B-3-307 the Third District Court for The State of Utah is the
proper venue because, “the cause of action arises,” within its boundaries.
The Question(s)
Knowing that Utah has not been a friendly
location for Tesla prior to May
2018 and the plaintiff has filed the case in State Court asking for a jury,
please answer the following question:
·
Applying our newly studied elements of
jurisdiction and venue, how do you foresee Tesla and Service King responding to
the complaint?
I only have the case filing in PDF so I will send it to you
all via canvas instead of a hyperlink.
If I were in Tesla’s position, I would definitely attempt getting this into a federal court for a few reasons. It seems like the Utah Supreme Court has already ruled against Tesla in their ability to sell their cars directly to consumers (instead of a franchise). Despite this ruling, I feel that if a jury is granted in this case, a jury would not be biased from the previous case ruled in the Utah courts, as Tesla, I would be more concerned about the jury being biased for other reasons (these reasons could include jurors’ previous experiences with automobile accidents, experiences with “unfair” dealings with larger corporations, etc.).
ReplyDeleteThe jury biases could be formulated from the exposure the story has received state-wide. This exposure gives Tesla good reason to attempt to move the case to federal courts, or at the least, change the venue. This movement of venue due to higher publicity would increase the likelihood of forming a jury that has not formed an opinion about the case.
Where the amounts of the damage present in the case or high and the likely biased opinions of the courts and possibly even the potential jurors, Tesla would be wise to attempt getting their case heard in federal courts.
I agree with Jordan on moving to Federal Court. Seems like Tesla would be inclined to move the case from State Court to Federal Court.
DeleteIn the Complaint, I noticed that the Plaintiff sent demanded a jury trial. One tactic that PI attorneys use is to file the Complaint without requesting a jury in hopes that the Defendant will shoulder the cost. UCA § 78A-2-230 (https://www.utcourts.gov/resources/fees.htm) sets the cost for a jury demand in a civil trial at $250.00 so it is always nice to pass off that cost to the other party where possible. Utah Civil Rule 38 (http://www.utcourts.gov/resources/rules/urcp/urcp038.html) states that the parties have "14 days after the service of the last pleading directed to such issue," so issuing the demand upfront and taking on the costs tells you a lot about the intent of the Plaintiff. As a side note, I checked Xchange(https://www.utcourts.gov/records/) to lookup the docket and it looks like the Plaintiff had to pay the jury demand fee two days after the filing and there was some issue with how the payment was processed. Not relevant to the Complaint, but interesting to note.
Jordan...you make some good points on the issue of potential jury bias. We will discuss in class what steps lawyers and courts take to seat an impartial jury
DeletePeter...You are correct that you need not ask for a jury in your complaint, although most plaintiff's lawyer do, so as to avoid the possibility of later forgetting to make a timely request and thus waiving the right to a jury trial. Although it certainly depends on the type of claim being asserted, the general wisdom is that juries have a tendency to award higher damages than judges and consequently plaintiff's lawyers generally request a jury trial.
DeleteHaving drafted a number of Complaints and Petitions, I want to mention that this Complaint looks fairly standard and is an excellent example of a well drafted Complaint, at least based on the overall appearance, not necessarily the content (I'll get to that in another post).
ReplyDeleteAs I've learned in my law firm, a good deal of document drafting is form work (though it is important to check the citations to the Code to ensure they are up to date) and the documents tend to look fairly similar from client to client. Clearly the allegations, causes of action, and prayer for relief change, but the bare bones of a complaint would be similar across clients.
Below, I've posted my form for new Complaints I draft for my attorney. Typically, he has me fill in the appropriate bracketed information for the case and only dictates information starting at the General Allegations section.
COME NOW Plaintiffs [CLIENT], by and through counsel, WRONA | DUBOIS, PLLC, and hereby complain for causes of action, alleging as follows:
PARTIES 1. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs [CLIENT] have been residents of [COUNTY] County, State of Utah. 2. At all relevant times, Defendant [NAME] was a Utah resident of, and transacting business in, [COUNTY] County, State of Utah.
3. Each of the Doe Defendants are liable in some manner, either by wrongful act, omission, and negligence or otherwise, for the occurrences alleged and that the injuries alleged, in part or in whole, were legally caused by the conduct of the Doe Defendants. 4. This action concerns [ISSUE].
5. At all material times, each of the Defendants were agents, servants, employers, employees, joint venturers, partners and/or alter egos of one or more of each of the remaining Defendants, and were at all times acting within the purpose and scope of such agency, servitude, joint venture, alter ego, partnership or employment, and with authority, consent approval and/or ratification of each of the remaining Defendants.
JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND DISCOVERY TIER
6. This is a civil action and the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to UTAH CODE ANN. § 78A-5-102. 7. The causes of action and injuries giving rise to this Complaint occurred in [COUNTY] County, State of Utah, and venue is appropriate in this Court pursuant to UTAH CODE ANN. § 78B-3-307.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The complaint's naming of Tesla Motors UT Inc. as a corporation headquartered in Utah looks like a deliberate attempt to preempt diversity jurisdiction. Since Tesla Motors UT Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of another named defendant, Tesla Inc., this joinder strikes me as spurious. I would expect the so-described "Tesla Defendants" to call this into question during their motion for removal to Federal court, which it would seem to be in their interest to attempt.
ReplyDeleteFrom another standpoint...are Federal courts ready to hear this? Federal law has yet to catch up with the relevant technology. (The NHTSA seems downright sympathetic to the autonomous-vehicle industry, praising the technology as a general improvement to highway safety. They emphasize (p20) that all vehicles sold in the States must comply with FMVSS standards, but a cursory look at those regulations suggests that they are of limited use here; existing policy does not address what the agency could not have predicted. The responsibility of individual states to enact and enforce laws and to regulate liability is also emphasized (p20, ibid). As these autopilot incidents become more common, it will be interesting to see if "ripeness" is satisfied from a federal question standpoint.
On the other hand, under Utah state law, operating a car dealership seems to satisfy the first criterion for sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state. This strikes me (no pun intended) as a more secure footing for the plaintiff than the attempt to frustrate diversity -- especially since the amount in controversy far exceeds $75K.
And we will see more like this, for sure. Drivers seem eager to abdicate responsibility to their cars, and dealerships may be too eager to encourage the same -- but if a car really "drives itself," why even restrict operation to licensed and insured drivers?
I look forward to following this one. Thanks for sharing such a compelling and timely case with us!
Drivers do, as you correctly stated, rely too heavily on autopilot and abdicate responsibility to their cars. This is true! We, as humans, rely far too much upon our technology. However, I think the autopilot feature was overblown from the beginning. On one hand, CEO Elon Musk touts the features of the vehicles full autonomy, while also admitting that the technology will "never be perfect". Vehicles owners likely have a false sense of security with respect to the merits of the autopilot features.
DeleteI agree; manufacturers are overselling the capabilities of the technology, and I think the people least likely to understand its limitations are the most likely to be seduced by advertising. This comes back to my point about licensing and insuring drivers: if these cars were truly "set it and forget it," we could theoretically transport children in them unsupervised. Tesla probably won't sell these vehicles to a five-year-old, so whatever sophistication they're boasting of, there remains an element of caveat emptor.
DeleteWith little precedent "on the ground," maybe the FAA or the NTSB could teach us a thing or two. Autopilot is a much older "toy" at cruising altitude. Numerous aircraft misadventures have resulted when a loss of cabin pressure incapacitated everyone onboard, and the autopilot effectively "outlived" the human one. Most famous among these might be the death of Payne Stewart. Parallels are limited, but it's nonetheless interesting to revisit the outcome of that case.
Regarding the comment of the joinder being "spurious", in tort cases, a plaintiff will want to sue all parties involved in the chain of distribution. This is in order to increase the amount of damages that are awarded as the seller may be jointly and severally liable for damages even if the manufacturer may seem like the party that should shoulder the most blame. Tort cases are usually contingent, meaning that the lawyers do not get paid unless the are able to settle or receive a judgment, so going after as many parties as possible that you think you can prove are liable is a wise legal (and business) decision.
DeleteErin...naming both Tesla, Inc. a California corporation, and Tesla Motors, a Utah corporation, as defendants has the effect of precluding removal to federal court because the federal court would not have subject matter jurisdiction (no federal question or diversity since both plaintiff and one of the defendants are Utah citizens), but was likely motivated by the need to sue all defendants who could have potential liability in the matter. In this instance, Tesla Inc. for allegedly manufacturing a defective and dangerous product and Tesla Motors for selling the vehicle and allegedly making false representations about vehicle performance. Plaintiff may prevail against one or both of the defendants on different theories and thus needs both defendants to be parties in the suit.
DeletePeter...your response to Erin's comment about spurious joinder is generally correct, but adding defendants does not "...increase the amount of damages awarded..." The damages, if proven by plaintiff, will remain the same, but which defendant may be liable for what damages may not be the same.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe federal and state courts seem to have concurrent jurisdiction here. Tesla, though incorporated in Palo Alto, CA, has sufficient contacts within the state of Utah due to its showroom (and now, dealership) presence. In May of this year, the Utah Supreme Court ruled that Tesla could own and operate its dealerships within the state. Previously under Utah’s direct sales law, Tesla was allowed a showroom in SLC while interested buyers were required to purchase the vehicles out-of-state and have them delivered to Utah. Either way, Tesla has sold its vehicles to Utah’s citizens, or to others within the state, and has availed itself of the protection of state laws. As we have learned over the last few weeks, personal jurisdiction "is the price defendants pay for deliberate efforts to derive benefits from or conduct activities in a state". According to its company profile on Justia, Tesla has routinely filed within federal courts. My inclination is that they will do the same with respect to this case as well.
ReplyDeleteJOSEPH W. GLANNON, CIVIL PROCEDURE 19 (7ED. 2013).
Good point. I tend to agree.
DeleteInteresting. I have actually been waiting to see if there would be Tesla complaint. I would expect them to move this case to federal courts. I am assuming that the plaintiff is suing the UT Tesla dealership and NOT the Tesla corporation in order to keep in case in Utah State Court. How does that effect this case as far as Tesla Corporation? I find it hard to believe that you would not be able to include the larger Tesla corporation, especially if you are claiming, as the plaintiff does in her complaint, that Tesla Inc. was engaged in "designing, testing, manufacturing, distributing, promoting, maintaining, and selling motor vehicles which were used in the state of Utah for general public use on public roadways."
ReplyDeleteI have often wondered how technology will end up in consumers trying release themselves from any accountability. In this case it seems that the plaintiff was clearly not paying attention to the roads and received a Class C Misdemeanor for said negligence. Cool features like "autopilot" mode or "ludicrous" mode do not mean that a driver does not need to be in control at all times.
I have visited the Palo Alto dealership, and it was reiterated to me again and again that while the Tesla features are amazing, they do not substitute for an active and aware driver. So, the long answer to Todd's question is that Tesla, Inc. will try to move the case to federal court (especially if Utah has not been friendly to them in the past) and insist that Mrs. Lommatzsch was not an active driver and relied too heavily on the features of the car rather than realizing she, ultimately, is responsible for the car as its driver.
Tricia...Tesla, Inc. the parent corporation and the manufacturer of the vehicle in question is named as a defendant and it would be bound by any judgment or other resolution of the lawsuit. I will be surprised if a removal effort is pursued. We will discuss how removal works procedurally in our next class.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it is likely Tesla will look to move the case to a federal court. It will be interesting to see if they also end up challenging the court’s personal jurisdiction in the state of Utah. As we have learned and discussed, if the court doesn’t have general jurisdiction, then it would need specific jurisdiction to hear the case. This comes down to whether they have met the requirements for “minimum contacts” in the state. It is understood that Tesla was attempting to do business in the state, but they were not legally allowed to do so until earlier this year. Will the showroom they have had here be enough to meet the requirements for general jurisdiction? In our reading it mentions that the presence of stores or branches are typically not enough to suffice on their own to subject a defendant to the jurisdiction of the state courts. Will it be enough to satisfy the “minimum contacts”? Tesla might argue it shouldn’t as they were pushed out, and had a lengthy fight with the state to get to the point where they can now do business. I am curious to know if the purchase contract has any specifications as to where a suit can be filed.
ReplyDeleteService King will likely prefer to move the case to federal court as well. I don't foresee the same personal jurisdictional issues, as they were servicing the vehicle in this state and actively doing business with the Plaintiff. But they could certainly raise the question.
As we have learned, this is a very fact-intensive question that the courts will have to consider, should either of the defendants challenge the courts jurisdiction in the state of Utah. If they do not raise the issue quickly they stand to waive the right and consent to litigation in the forum selected by Ms. Lommotzsch
TNT...you are mixing up the issues of personal and subject matter jurisdiction. "General and specific" jurisdiction and "minimum contacts" are concepts relating to personal jurisdiction; not subject matter jurisdiction. As we will discuss in our next class, there is little doubt that a Utah court, either state or federal, would have personal jurisdiction over both Tesla defendants, but a Utah federal court would not have subject matter jurisdiction because there is no federal question involved and the plaintiffs and defendants lack diversity of citizenship.
DeleteUnfortunately for Tesla, there is no federal question or diversity jurisdiction present in this case. From reviewing Todd’s post, both the plaintiff and the defendant have domicile in Utah, and although the amount in question is over the $75,000 threshold, they can’t move the case to federal court because there is a lack in subject matter jurisdiction. As learned recently in class, subject matter jurisdiction is only applicable in cases and controversies of federal question and diversity. If Tesla did want to move this case to federal court, the plaintiff would need to sue Tesla as an entity, rather than Tesla’s UT branch. This would create diversity so the case did not have to be tried in a Utah court where there may be some bias from a previous decision.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very good point and I'm glad that you and Erin brought this up. However, reading the caption of the case, there are three defendants, one of which is the parent Tesla corporation based out of California.
DeleteEven though I am definitely not an expert in jurisdiction, I think that this case cannot be removed to federal court because the plaintiff is from Utah and the business of one defendant was incorporated in Utah-the same state, so diversity jurisdiction does not apply. However, I wonder if this was intentional and why? Did the plaintiff have to name Tesla UT in the suit because of the “verbal guarantee?” Did the plaintiff want to name Tesla UT in the suit to ensure the case was heard in state court for the same advantages we discussed in class last week? I also wonder if a jury in a conservative state will have opinions about electric car companies (and green technology in general). Further, I wonder if this same jury has opinions about the reliability and safety of traditional, gas-powered cars. Alternately, I wonder if a jury is biased toward the type of person who would purchase an electric car. I cannot wait to follow this case!
DeleteDoesn't there have to be just one aspect of the entire claim that could be heard in Federal court, i.e. the suit against the CA based Tesla Corp, for the entire case to be removed to the higher court? Wouldn't diversity for one of the defendants open that door? Since all of the defendants were listed in one claim, couldn't all of them collectively file with the Federal court for removal?
DeleteLauren...you got it! Note, however, that diversity is based on "citizenship," which for individuals is domicile, but for corporations is either state of incorporation or principal place of business (not domicile)
DeleteMartha...the short answer to your questions is "no." There must be complete diversity between all plaintiffs and all defendants.
DeleteThank you. I was just rereading that section in M&M and saw the exact example. Because there is one defendant from the same state as the plaintiff, (UT) the diversity is not complete.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteFrom the dispute we need to ask, is there subject matter jurisdiction? Could this case be moved from state court to federal court? reading the entire case, the answer is yes.
ReplyDelete- That upon information and belief, at all times material hereto, the Defendant Tesla, Inc. is a California Corporation with its principal place of business in Palo Alto, California, and was doing business in Utah.
- That upon information and belief, at all times material hereto, the Defendant Tesla Motors UT, Inc. is a California Corporation with its principal place of business in Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah.
- That upon information and belief, at all times material hereto, the Defendant Service King Paint & Body is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Richardson, Texas, and doing business in Utah as Service King Collision Repair (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Service King”).
Both Tesla and Service King principle places of businesses state that both are citizens of another state. And the dispute is over $75,000. This information is actually good for the advantage of these two businesses. But, did plaintiff consider that scenario? Based on the description of the dispute, yes. They did and applied a Utah law U.C.A. § 78A-5-102 (1) knowing that the stipulations and rules on the venue of this case will allow the case to be heard in District Court of the State of Utah. Tesla and King could try to go to federal but I do not know if it could possibly be granted based on the Utah ruling.
Based on Todd’s question. Service King could legally make Tesla responsible for the manufacturing issues. King might have liability on the car which I assume its insurance might be part of the investigation dispute. Tesla on the other hand will probably take police, mechanical and human maneuvering into consideration, by the fact that the driver was completely distracted by the phone relying his and other people’s life in a machine, and previously knowing that car had mayor defective issues. Utah’s law does not exempt of the following.
Cell phone restrictions:
• Drivers less than 18 years old are PROHIBITED from using a cell phone while driving, unless faced with an emergency.
Texting restrictions:
• All drivers, regardless of age, are banned from texting while driving.
Tesla also will use the plaintiff’s previous car malfunction reports to prove negligence on the driver’s part.
Now, would that excuse Tesla from having manufacturing malfunctions and be dismissed in that dispute? Probably not, I also assume that the will be at the discretion of the judge. If a jury is involved, plaintiff might have a small chance to gain the jury’s side. But also a jury might not like to hear that plaintiff was using the phone at the time of the accident. Jury could be biased in the dispute but I do not think they will ignore the facts of both parties. In my personal judgment I do not see any advantages from plaintiff against the defendants. The facts indicate that the plaintiff violate Utah laws and also ignored real malfunctions in the car, and probably also ignored safety standards under Utah law, and still continue driving the car. Wherever this case is heard, I do not see probabilities of the plaintiff winning this dispute. If this case is taken to a federal court, most federal judges are unbiased and take cases based on the law and not the interpretation of the law.
Victor...great point about the use of a cell phone by the plaintiff and the possible violation of Utah state law. This would go to who was at fault for the accident. A jury could apportion fault between plaintiff and one or more defendant. However, the answer to Todd's question about removal to federal court is "no." We will discuss in our next class.
DeleteThis is a great case study Todd. Good choice!!
ReplyDeleteI guess it's possible that Ms. Lommatzsch's attorneys are opting to keep this case in state court under the assumption that a jury from the Third District jurisdiction would be tougher on Tesla, but potential jury bias - regardless of the question of General Personal jurisdiction versus Subject Matter jurisdiction - is the least of their problems.
First of all - unless they have some "black box recording" - her attorneys would have a hell of a time selling a jury on the claim of strict liability. Proving that the brakes failed, the sensor was defective or improperly installed, and, that the maintenance service during the year prior to the accident was incompetent, seems like a ridiculously expensive pre-trial burden for a firm to bare; requiring all kinds of complex discovery, physical evidence, and expert witness testimony, which - even if they could obtain - would be death-defying to argue before a jury.
Second, I think the relevance of the warranty claim is near zero. A salesperson "selling" her on the high-tech features of a car can hardly be considered a promise of performance as represented. I suppose if Service King refused to cover the repairs under warranty, she might have some leverage. But, I'd be shocked if smashing into a fire truck qualifies as bumper-to-bumper or powertrane loss under the warranty contract.
Third, the fact that she was cited for "failure to keep a proper lookout while operating a motor vehicle" doesn't do her any favors. As anyone who's ever been involved in an "at fault" accident can tell you (and rear-ending another vehicle in freeway traffic is about as "at fault" as one can get) they are nearly impossible to defend, and, would be a pretty convincing attack on the credibility of Ms. Lommatzsch's claims.
My guess is that Tesla Corporate will want to avoid a PR problem, so they'll offer Ms.Lommatzsch a decent settlement; $150,000 cash, attorneys fees, a new, fully-loaded Tesla S, and a free trip to Hawthorne to tour the SpaceX headquarters.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI found the breach of warranty claim to be rather compelling given that Service King had replaced a sensor on Ms. Lommatzsch's Tesla and --
Delete"40. The Tesla Defendants expressly or implicitly warranted that the Tesla Model S in question was merchantable, free from defects, fit for the purpose for which it was intended and
sold and fit for its reasonably foreseeable uses.
41. The Plaintiff relied upon the Tesla Defendants’ warranty.
42. The Tesla Defendants breached the warranties of their product.
43. The Tesla Defendants’ breach or breaches of warranties were the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages."
I found a similar breach of warranty dispute (https://nydailyrecord.com/2011/02/03/breach-of-warranty-case-brings-754k-verdict/) involving a machine tool a company purchased, but was unsatisfied with. “Under the purchase agreement, both [defendant companies] were responsible for ensuring the machine was able to make parts for which it was intended...We were able to prove to the court that the problem with the machine was not modifications made by Magnus, but were inherent design flaws and assembly errors that created geometry problems with the machine.”
Likewise, if Tesla sold a warranty for a defective car, I would think that a breach of warranty finding would be appropriate.
Another potential obstacle, however, may be that the plaintiff received verbal assurances that the vehicle's safety features would ensure the car would stop on its own in the event an obstacle was in its path. Is this "guarantee" valid if it was not provided in writing?
Great question about the oral promises a salesman might have made vs. the written warranty. The first is a case of truth in advertising but it would be near-impossible, absent an admissible recording, to prove the exact words spoken in the moment. I think you're absolutely right that the letter of the warranty will be crucial here, if the plaintiff's lawyers can convince the court of a faulty product/inept repair job.
DeleteIt is interesting how quickly some of us (me included!) jumped to conclusions about the driver's credulity -- autonomous vehicles really are new technology, and it's easy to dismiss their early-adopters for abdicating responsibility, when really, they might see it as an extra safeguard against potential human error.
In that situation, the claims of the manufacturer, seller, and maintainer are paramount. "Buyer beware" logic addresses the driver's obligations as a licensed/insured driver, but it doesn't waive the defendants' responsibilities as business owners. Your post made me reconsider this from a new angle. Thank you!
Erin, I'm with you! I have been in a Tesla when the driver placed it in "self-drive" mode and I was panic-stricken for the 30 seconds no human was in control of the car! However, it drove surprisingly well at 60 mph through the canyons and hugged the curves of the road with no problem. I wonder if each time one experiences the success of the automatic mode she becomes more and more trusting of the software. That might be fair.
DeleteJason...the Plaintiff should immediately jump on that settlement offer, if made!
DeleteLeila and Erin...the breach of warranty claim relates not to any written document or oral statement made by the salesman,but relates to the Third Claim for Relief which alleges that Tesla breached an implied warranty of fitness that every manufacturer who puts a product into the stream of commerce makes. This is related to the second claim for relief that Tesla made a defective product that is unreasonable dangerous.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing I wanted to mention after looking further into this case were these comments directly from Tesla and their website:
ReplyDeleteTesla has previously said Autopilot is an advanced driver-assistance system and not a self-driving system. But the website’s Autopilot section states: “All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver.”
Tesla issued a statement in response to the lawsuit, saying, "When using Autopilot, drivers are continuously reminded of their responsibility to keep their hands on the wheel and maintain control of the vehicle at all times. Tesla has always been clear that Autopilot doesn’t make the car impervious to all accidents."
These seem to be contradictory in the sense that it is advising consumers that a Tesla vehicle is safer than that of a human driver but then refutes that argument by saying that they have always been clear that Autopilot doesn’t make the car impervious to all accidents. However contradictory these statements are, it's common sense. As Erin mentioned in her earlier post, just because Tesla offers an Autopilot mode does not mean that they will sell one to an individual that can't drive (a child, someone without their driver's license, etc.) because they assume that Tesla has created a self-driving vehicle.
I see the point the plaintiff is trying to make but she misses the mark. I can even tie this back into Martha's post in a way where individuals are willingly putting their information on the internet but then frustrated when laws are made in regards to that data.
I am probably just rambling at this point but as I was researching this case more, I just had to add to my original posting.
Even if the information on the Tesla website seems (or is) contradictory, I assume one is responsible for relying on the most conservative information provided. If the instruction is "to keep their hands on the wheel and maintain control of the vehicle at all times," I have trouble believing that engaging on her phone for more than a minute would not be found to be in violation of that expectation.
DeleteLauren...great observation in noting the seemingly inconsistent statements by Tesla regarding whether its vehicles are self-driving. These statements likely will be admissible and a jury will weigh them on the issue of fault.
DeleteI'm wondering if the plaintiff serviced a complaint to three or two different defendants: 1) TESLA, INC., a California Corporation, 2) TESLA MOTORS UT, INC., a Utah Corporation, and 3) SERVICE KING PAINT & BODY, LLC, a Texas Limited Liability Company DBA SERVICE KING COLLISION REPAIR? The jurisdiction was established, and the venue will definitely be in favor of the plaintiff, but is she suing Tesla, INC, a California Corporation as well as the Utah Corporation? If she is suing the California Corporation, then the defendant, Tesla, INC, a California Corporation, could motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b) due to lack of jurisdiction which could move this case to a federal court based on diversity of the subject matter. However, I am not exactly sure who she is suing.
ReplyDeleteThe answer is there are three defendants. The DBA just a way to be able for a business to utilize different name for marketing or trade purposes while also allowing the business to utilize the dba title to open up banking accounts, enter into contracts, and write checks.
DeleteTesla, Inc. and Tesla Motors Ut, Inc. are separate business that are related, but not necessarily owned and operated by the same person. If you check the business information on Tesla Motors Ut, Inc. https://secure.utah.gov/bes/details.html?entity=9269861-0142
you can find out who the registered agent is and whether the business license is active. Hot tip, this website is very useful when searching for information to include on an summons.
Raelene...Peter is correct as to the number of defendants being sued, but Peter, Tesla Motors is a separate entity and is not (according to the complaint) a DBA of Tesla, Inc.
DeleteTodd~To answer your question:
ReplyDeleteAs far as jurisdiction goes, I believe that the Utah State District Court certainly has personal jurisdiction over defendants. Defendants, running a business in Utah, would likely meet the minimal contacts standard necessary for personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff’s domicile doesn’t matter in this context because the plaintiff subjected herself to jurisdiction of the court by filing there.
If defendants wanted to remove the case to federal court, they would not have subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity jurisdiction (since the plaintiff and the one of the defendants are both domiciled in Utah). It’s possible defendants could get subject matter jurisdiction based on federal question jurisdiction (if there is a federal question–possibly a federal safety statute).
I thought I read in someone’s post that based on a bias against the company, defendants could try to remove the case to federal court, but that’s true only if defendants have federal subject matter jurisdiction.
Defendants could try to transfer venue to another state court in another county based on bias.
Tyrrell...You got it! Good analysis of the jurisdiction issues. Jurisdiction is determined by the complaint and plaintiff did not allege any violation of a federal safety law.
DeleteTodd..great post! You selected a timely case that illustrates the nuances of jurisdiction perfectly and sparked a robust conversation.
ReplyDelete