NTSB Blames Drivers, Tesla, Lax Regulations in Florida Crash
The National Transportation Safety Board said Tesla failed to limit where its autopilot can be used, allowing drivers to activate it in areas it wasn't designed for.
March 20, 2020 at 12:51 PM
4 minute read
The National Transportation Safety Board says two drivers, Tesla and lax regulation of new partially automated driving systems are to blame for a fatal 2019 crash in Florida involving a Tesla on Autopilot.
The NTSB, in a report issued Thursday, said the design of the Autopilot system contributed to the crash because it allowed the Tesla driver to avoid paying attention. Tesla also failed to limit where Autopilot can be used, allowing drivers to activate it in areas it wasn't designed for, the report said.
The board, which investigates crashes and makes safety recommendations, also took the unusual step of accusing the government's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of contributing to the crash. The agency failed to make sure automakers put safeguards in place to limit use of electronic driving systems to areas where they are designed to work, the report said.
The report was another case of sparring between the two federal agencies over regulating new electronic driver-assist technology, which NHTSA so far has been reluctant to do.
The March 1, 2019, crash in Delray Beach, Florida, killed the 50-year-old driver of a Tesla Model 3. The car was traveling 69 miles per hour when neither the driver nor the Autopilot system braked or tried to avoid a tractor-trailer that was crossing in its path on U.S. 441 around 6:17 a.m. The car struck the trailer, whose driver the report cited for turning in front of the Tesla. The trailer sheared off the Tesla's roof. The truck driver was not hurt.
"The Delray Beach investigation marks the third fatal vehicle crash we have investigated where a driver's overreliance on Tesla's Autopilot and the operational design of Tesla's Autopilot have led to tragic consequences," NTSB Chairman Robert Sumwalt said in a statement.
At a hearing last month on a California fatal crash, board members were frustrated that safety recommendations from previous Tesla Autopilot crashes had been ignored by Tesla, and that NHTSA has not taken action on its recommendations.
NHTSA referred to a previous statement that it will review the NTSB's report and that all commercially available vehicles require human drivers to stay in control at all times.
The Delray Beach crash was remarkably similar to one in 2016 in Williston, Florida, which also killed a Tesla driver.
In the Delray Beach crash, the driver turned on the car's adaptive cruise control system, which keeps it a set distance from vehicles of ahead of it, 12.3 seconds before impact, the NTSB found. Autosteer, which keeps the car centered in its lane, was turned on 2.4 seconds later. No pressure was detected on the steering wheel in the 7.7 seconds before the crash, the report said.
Tesla told the NTSB that the driver wasn't warned about not having his hands on the wheel "because the approximate 8-second duration was too short to trigger a warning under the circumstances," the report said.
The NTSB's report said Autopilot wasn't designed to work in areas with cross traffic, yet Tesla allows drivers to use it under those circumstances. Tesla told the NTSB that forward collision warning and automatic emergency braking systems on the Model 3 in the Delray Beach crash weren't designed to activate for crossing traffic or to prevent crashes at high speeds.
"According to Tesla, the Autopilot vision system did not consistently detect and track the truck as an object or threat as it crossed the path of the car," the report said.
A message was left Thursday seeking comment from Tesla, which warns in owners manuals that Autopilot is designed for use on limited access highways with no cross traffic. The company also says Autopilot is a driver-assist system and that drivers must be ready to intervene at all times.
Tom Krisher reports for the Associated Press.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTragedy on I-95: Florida Lawsuit Against Horizon Freight System Could Set New Precedent in Crash Cases
2 minute readSecurities Claims Against Lilium N.V. for Electric Plane Production Delays Fail to Take Flight, Federal Judge Holds
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Public Notices/Calendars
- 2Wednesday Newspaper
- 3Decision of the Day: Qui Tam Relators Do Not Plausibly Claim Firm Avoided Tax Obligations Through Visa Applications, Circuit Finds
- 4Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-116
- 5Big Law Firms Sheppard Mullin, Morgan Lewis and Baker Botts Add Partners in Houston
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250