Woman Sues Tesla for Husband's Death, Claiming His Model S Suddenly Accelerated
Representatives from Arias Sanguinetti Wang & Torrijos in Los Angeles and Slavik Law in Steamboat Springs, Colorado, claim that the collision was caused by a series of defects known to Tesla.
June 26, 2019 at 05:55 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
A woman is suing Tesla Inc. for products liability and negligence after her husband died, claiming his 2015 Model S suddenly accelerated from 10 to 70 miles per hour seconds before crashing into a tree and catching fire.
Stacey McCarthy sued the high-tech automotive company on behalf of herself and her three children bringing claims related to the November 2016 death of her husband, Kevin McCarthy. According to a complaint filed Tuesday, McCarthy's leased Tesla suddenly and unexpectedly accelerated before it crashed and ignited. The suit claims McCarthy was unable to exit the vehicle due to an alleged door latch malfunction, and for about 20 minutes, he was trapped breathing toxic fumes as flames burned 75% of his body. He died at the hospital from his injuries.
In the complaint, representatives from Arias Sanguinetti Wang & Torrijos in Los Angeles and Slavik Law in Steamboat Springs, Colorado, claim that McCarthy's death was caused by a series of defects known to Tesla, including uncommanded acceleration.
The filing cites nearly 150 product complaints brought to Tesla directly or through the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration or the U.S. Department of Transportation. The case studies listed in the complaint describe uncommanded acceleration, issues with the automatic emergency braking system, door latch defects and fires allegedly caused by the cars' lithium ion battery, all of which contributed to McCarthy's death, according to the complaint.
Tesla did not immediately respond to a request for comment at the time of publication.
The plaintiffs attorneys allege that these accidents are preventable with technology already in use in other Tesla models. Unlike Tesla's Models S and X, the complaint asserts that there have been no public records of fires in its Model 3 vehicle, which uses the company's patented intumescent fire retardant. “It is believed by some observers that besides the use of intumescent material, battery compartment changes were made to the exterior box structure as well as the interior battery module to improve the overall safety of the battery compartment on the Model 3, which, unfortunately, despite its accessibility, was not the case on the earlier Tesla models, although the technology to do so has been available well prior to the manufacture of the vehicle at issue,” the attorneys write.
Besides suing for products liability and negligence, McCarthy is also bringing claims of breach of warranty and loss of consortium and is seeking special, general and punitive and exemplary damages.
“Without these product defects, we wouldn't have seen these deaths, and we would have families still intact”, said Elise R. Sanguinetti, founding partner at Arias Sanguinetti. “The family really wants to make sure that this doesn't happen to other families, they want to make sure that it's known, and that Tesla does the right thing and is held accountable.”
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
© 2024 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 AllLitigation Leaders: Mark Jones of Nelson Mullins on Helping Clients Assemble ‘Dream Teams’
Litigators of the Week: Rolling Back Elon Musk's $56B Tesla Compensation Package
Litigators of the Week: Quinn Emanuel Slashes $137M Racial Discrimination Verdict Against Tesla by Nearly 98%
Litigators of the Week: Defense Verdict Secured By Quinn Emanuel in Multibillion Securities Trial Over Musk's Go-Private Tweets
Trending Stories
- 1Litigation Leaders: Greenspoon Marder’s Beth-Ann Krimsky on What Makes Her Team ‘Prepared, Compassionate and Wicked Smart’
- 2A Look Back at High-Profile Hires in Big Law From Federal Government
- 3Grabbing Market Share From Rivals, Law Firms Ramped Up Group Lateral Hires
- 4Navigating Twitter's 'Rocky Deal Process' Helped Drive Simpson Thacher's Tech and Telecom Practice
- 5Public Notices/Calendars
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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