Woman Sues Tesla for Husband's Death After Reported Uncommanded Acceleration in Model S
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
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
© 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 AllShareholder Democracy? The Chatter Musk’s Tesla Pay Case Is Spurring Between Lawyers and Clients
6 minute readWillkie Farr & Gallagher Drives Legal Challenge for Uber Against State's Rideshare Laws
5 minute readEPA grants California authority to ban sales of new gas cars by 2035. Action faces reversal by Trump
Trending Stories
- 1Relaxing Penalties on Discovery Noncompliance Allows Criminal Cases to Get Decided on Merit
- 2Reviewing Judge Merchan's Unconditional Discharge
- 3With New Civil Jury Selection Rule, Litigants Should Carefully Weigh Waiver Risks
- 4Young Lawyers Become Old(er) Lawyers
- 5Caught In the In Between: A Legal Roadmap for the Sandwich Generation
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