View Full Version : Tesla lawsuit
As I understand this, an 18 year old was doing 116mph in a 25mph speed limit, crashed and killed his passenger, his parent somehow believe this is Tesla's fault?
Um, no, it was the driver's fault, without knowing the autopsy findings I would imagine that hitting a concrete wall at 80+mph would be fatal regardless of the batteries catching fire
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201
Pigmy Pony
12-01-2019, 08:08
With sympathy for the parent's loss, I smell money here, and his solicitor certainly does too. :stalks:
It's like those blimps who sue McDonalds for making them fat. Just takes the piss.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/tesla-fatal-crash-parents-of-dead-teen-sue-over-alleged-faulty-battery/
story here as guardian link no work
dave2010
12-01-2019, 08:23
With sympathy for the parent's loss, I smell money here, and his solicitor certainly does too. :stalks:
It's like those blimps who sue McDonalds for making them fat. Just takes the piss.I wish I could sue McDonalds for hot coffee, which I recall one woman did successfully in the US for a large sum. Her complaint was that it burnt her as I think she had the cup between her legs while driving, and the manoeuvre caused the cup to spill.
It'd be a quick way to make a few pounds if UK courts would fall for this - but I'm sure they won't.
You couldn't make it up, could you?!!
us courts have a lot to answer for. now you have to have warnings on food like, this product is hot:doh:
dave2010
12-01-2019, 08:27
Not sure if it's always the US courts.
I like the new instructions on food.
"Open package. Eat"
except that sometimes opening the package is nigh on impossible.
walpurgis
12-01-2019, 09:45
Metallic Lithium is unstable in air, so basically, if you have an electric or hybrid car you are driving a bomb.
I wonder if there are any Hydrogen fuel cell or LPG hybrids? They might cause a bang!
the whole thing should be centering around the kid behaving like a madman and killing folk. why do folk have to put that responsibility off of him and to an extent, themselves and onto the car company. he could have killed dozens at that speed
the whole thing should be centering around the kid behaving like a madman and killing folk. why do folk have to put that responsibility off of him and to an extent, themselves and onto the car company. he could have killed dozens at that speed
It does explain in the article that the basis of the suit is that Tesla removed the speed limiter without asking the parent's permission. Presumably the car was registered in their names and not the son's.
Why do you think they have a sign on US car batteries that states:
"NOT FOR DRINKING" or words to that affect.
I kid you not [emoji6]
It does explain in the article that the basis of the suit is that Tesla removed the speed limiter without asking the parent's permission. Presumably the car was registered in their names and not the son's.Doing 55 in the 25 would have been ok then [emoji23]
In the Tesla's you can adjust the limiter yourself ?
Now do you honestly think that Tesla mechanics adjusted it or did the victim do it, I know where my money is [emoji6]
It does explain in the article that the basis of the suit is that Tesla removed the speed limiter without asking the parent's permission. Presumably the car was registered in their names and not the son's.
at 18 the limiter should have been set at 50, especially as he had been done for speeding before i think. either way, it was the kid who drove it at that speed, not tesla.
as ive said before its the american way to pass the blame card and sue for sanything...cash is king
at 18 the limiter should have been set at 50, especially as he had been done for speeding before i think. either way, it was the kid who drove it at that speed, not tesla.
as ive said before its the american way to pass the blame card and sue for sanything...cash is kingYou can change the speed limiter yourself in the touchscreen menu [emoji6]
Wouldn't be difficult for the lawyers to prove the asshole did it himself, just check his search history for YouTube videos about it or his Google search history [emoji23]
It's maybe even in the manual.
In the Tesla's you can adjust the limiter yourself ?
Now do you honestly think that Tesla mechanics adjusted it or did the victim do it, I know where my money is [emoji6]
According to the article Tesla introduced the set-it-yourself feature after this accident. The parents say they did not know that the son had got Tesla to deactivate the limiter or they would not have let him drive the car. If Tesla did deactivate on the instructions of someone who was not the legal owner then my guess is that they are going to have to pay up.
According to the article Tesla introduced the set-it-yourself feature after this accident. The parents say they did not know that the son had got Tesla to deactivate the limiter or they would not have let him drive the car. If Tesla did deactivate on the instructions of someone who was not the legal owner then my guess is that they are going to have to pay up.Ok, that's one mechanic out of a job then lol
walpurgis
12-01-2019, 11:00
The responsibilty really lies with whoever gave the kid the car!
Mind you, you can't blame the parents for sueing.
After all who wouldn't prefer a few million dollars to a kid [emoji23]
According to the article Tesla introduced the set-it-yourself feature after this accident. The parents say they did not know that the son had got Tesla to deactivate the limiter or they would not have let him drive the car. If Tesla did deactivate on the instructions of someone who was not the legal owner then my guess is that they are going to have to pay up.Also strange to think that they changed the settings after the accident.
Perhaps they hadn't been handed the lawsuit by then?
However, I'm pretty sure they'd have known about the accident a few minutes after it happened knowing the media, so I still find it strange that they added this user controlled setting?
The responsibilty really lies with whoever gave the kid the car!
Maybe. I would not be so stupid as to buy my 18 year old son a car that would do 120 MPH but if I thought to was limited to 85 that would be different.
(Actually if my 18 year old son wanted a car I'd tell him he'd better get a job and start saving but that's a whole different argument).
Speed doesn't kill people stupidity/carelessness does, you can die in an RTC at 30mph too it's just less likely and a lot less messy.
A car in the hands of an idiot at 50mph is a lot more dangerous than one at 100mph in the hands of an expert [emoji6]
think its not so much he did 100+ ' . 85 in a 30 zone is as bad and the crash would still likely happen somewhere
Speed doesn't kill people stupidity/carelessness does, you can die in an RTC at 30mph too it's just less likely and a lot less messy.
A car in the hands of an idiot at 50mph is a lot more dangerous than one at 100mph in the hands of an expert [emoji6]
True but assuming you are going to have a crash due to stupidity/carelessness the chance of death or serious injury increases exponentially with speed. If he'd hit the concrete at 85 there would have been a greater chance of survival.
You have to laugh at the lawsuit, the driver had already been done for 112mph. The parents had the limiter fitted to max of 85mph.
It was then removed at the workshop prior to the crash, parents state they didn't know, fair enough, but having a history of speeding didn't bother them, they were quite happy for him to do 85mph !
At the time of the accident he was doing in excess of 116mph, the lawsuit states that if he'd only been doing 85mph he wouldn't have lost control [emoji23]
Tesla should sue the parents for neglect and manslaughter for allowing a known speeder to drive their car [emoji23]
112mph ticket, why the hell was he still driving anyway? Or is that allowed in the USA?
I wonder if the limiter was removed as it was then an option in the software rather than mechanical? And it was never reset at 85mph I bet there was a software update done at the time of service.
Pigmy Pony
12-01-2019, 11:38
Article says the car hit a light pole. Is that Chinese for lamp post?
Article says the car hit a light pole. Is that Chinese for lamp post?No, just one that wasn't very heavy [emoji23]
mad-moon
12-01-2019, 11:40
It does explain in the article that the basis of the suit is that Tesla removed the speed limiter without asking the parent's permission. Presumably the car was registered in their names and not the son's.
even if the car was doing 85mph...the impact hitting a brick wall is that of 170mph and would have had the same outcome, but I do agree that the speed limiter, should not have been removed. In any event the young man would have been speeding. It was the driver who was at fault. If a speeding driver hits a pedestrian/pedestrians and kills them, he/she is prosecuted for man slaughter...This young guy, as sad as it is..killed himself and his passanger by driving extremely recklessly
walpurgis
12-01-2019, 11:41
Article says the car hit a light pole. Is that Chinese for lamp post?
Generally known as a Street Lighting Column here (well they were when I was in the game).
walpurgis
12-01-2019, 11:44
even if the car was doing 85mph...the impact hitting a brick wall is that of 170mph
Me no understand? :scratch:
Pigmy Pony
12-01-2019, 11:45
Generally known as a Street Lighting Column here (well they were when I was in the game).
I need to get my eyesight checked - I thought you was telling us about when you was ON the game! :booty:
Pigmy Pony
12-01-2019, 11:47
Me no understand? :scratch:
Clearly the wall was travelling at 85 too!
When you read the lawsuit, yeah the speed limiter is part of the suit, however it soon turns into a suit regarding the ability of the car to withstand a crash AND more importantly the ability of the batteries to be able to withstand such a crash.
I'm pretty sure the limiter was an issue, however the lawyers know that the batteries is where the most money lies [emoji6]
The batteries in newer models have intumescent protection on them and are much better protected in a crash.
Tesla AND the Technician (mechanic) are both being sued.
mad-moon
12-01-2019, 12:39
Clearly the wall was travelling at 85 too!
two cars travelling at 85mph...have a head on crash...the impact speed is 170mph...hitting a solid brick wall gives the same effect.....;)
mad-moon
12-01-2019, 12:48
Me no understand? :scratch:
http://warp.povusers.org/grrr/collisionmath.html
i think it is both will be the same obviously dependent on rigidity etc. if you hit another car with same construction bang head on then you feel your deceleration. ie 85 here. that by way is huge force and would go straight through a 2 ft thick wall. odds on him surviving a head on with an immovable object at that speed is extremely low. not a huge amount more than 120mph tbh in the real world. anything not tied down will be propelled forward increasing their mass to huge forces of impact on your back as well.
I remember seeing right beside me a car coming up the wrong side of motorway at beyond speed limit in a suicide bid. was near dunfermline. hit aan oncoming car causing unimaginable damage and carnage. His engine kept going bouncing up the rd uphill and on fire for a long way; cars including mine trying to avoid it and everything else flying about. Amazingly i got off scot free bar my nerves.
Odd that i had been in the receiving cars position 5/10 secs before, and i felt a touch on my shoulder and a voice say slow down and change lane...Believe me its true.... It changed me as a person.
walpurgis
12-01-2019, 13:50
An impact into a solid object at 85 mph does not tranform itself to a 170 mph impact.
An impact into a solid object at 85 mph does not tranform itself to a 170 mph impact.
No it doesn't but from the link Alan provided:
When the vehicle hits the rock wall at 50 km/h, the rock wall causes a force large enough to stop the vehicle right there. In other words, the vehicle hits the rock wall with a momentum equivalent to its speed times its mass. Conversely, by Newton's law, at the moment of the collision the rock wall causes an equal force to the vehicle in the opposite direction, causing it to stop. That is, the rock wall causes a force equivalent to the 50 km/h times the mass of the vehicle.
The misconception in the two-vehicle scenario is basically that this applied force is double that, ie. the equivalent to 100 km/h times the mass of the vehicle.
However, think about where this force is coming from in the two-vehicle scenario: It's coming from the second vehicle. But the second vehicle is also traveling at 50 km/h and has the same mass.
So we have two forces: Vehicle 1 applies the equivalent of 50 km/h times its mass to vehicle 2, and vehicle 2 applies an equal force to vehicle 1. This causes both vehicles to stop right there.
Where would the additional 50 km/h times the mass of the vehicle come from? Vehicle 1 cannot apply that force to itself. It's applying it to vehicle 2. So where is it coming from?
The answer is that it's not coming from anywhere because the force applied to vehicle 1 is not 100 km/h times the mass, but only 50 km/h times the mass. The same as with the rock wall.
mad-moon
12-01-2019, 14:35
An impact into a solid object at 85 mph does not tranform itself to a 170 mph impact.
what does the speed equate to then....??
walpurgis
12-01-2019, 14:39
what does the speed equate to then....??
136.794 kph
mad-moon
12-01-2019, 14:50
136.794 kph
smart arse
walpurgis
12-01-2019, 14:52
smart arse
:D
Pigmy Pony
13-01-2019, 10:44
I don't know Alan, you've made my head hurt.
Just when I thought I'd grasped it, something occurred to me - If the car hits a stationary wall, the force applied is speed x mass. Simple. But if the wall was moving away at the time, surely the impact would be reduced, and would continue to reduce if the "moving away" speed of the wall is increased, until the impact force becomes zero when the walls speed matches the vehicle. Now would the impact force not increase if the wall moved towards the approaching vehicle?
I think my puny brain cell is not enough for me to grasp this, and it would be a case of "show me then I'll get it".
mad-moon
13-01-2019, 22:32
I don't know Alan, you've made my head hurt.
Just when I thought I'd grasped it, something occurred to me - If the car hits a stationary wall, the force applied is speed x mass. Simple. But if the wall was moving away at the time, surely the impact would be reduced, and would continue to reduce if the "moving away" speed of the wall is increased, until the impact force becomes zero when the walls speed matches the vehicle. Now would the impact force not increase if the wall moved towards the approaching vehicle?
I think my puny brain cell is not enough for me to grasp this, and it would be a case of "show me then I'll get it".
No...I was quite wrong about the impact speed being doubled...when infact that....the wall is solid...and has exactly the same effect as if it were two cars hitting each other head on.....because the cars are doing the same speed the impact is the same as hitting the wall...because the speed is cancelled out and the vehicles are coming to an abrupt dead halt....as if they had hit a wall.. 50mph -----/o miles per hour/-----50mph...same as a brick wall...from 50mph to 0mph in an instant...
No...I was quite wrong about the impact speed being doubled...when infact that....the wall is solid...and has exactly the same effect as if it were two cars hitting each other head on.....because the cars are doing the same speed the impact is the same as hitting the wall...because the speed is cancelled out and the vehicles are coming to an abrupt dead halt....as if they had hit a wall.. 50mph -----/o miles per hour/-----50mph...same as a brick wall...from 50mph to 0mph in an instant...I must admit I did think that but didn't want to say lol.
Mind you hitting a concrete wall would still be worse than hitting another car [emoji6]
Pigmy Pony
14-01-2019, 08:07
I must admit I did think that but didn't want to say lol.
Mind you hitting a concrete wall would still be worse than hitting another car [emoji6]
Insurance company might disagree if the car you hit was a Bugatti Veyron.
Insurance company might disagree if the car you hit was a Bugatti Veyron.Lol aye that's true [emoji23]
unless it was in Grosvenor Crescent:eyebrows:
walpurgis
14-01-2019, 08:47
Mind you hitting a concrete wall would still be worse than hitting another car [emoji6]
Actually, no. The force of impact and energy involved would (in theory) be identical, hence consequent damage would be similar. Assuming the other car was indentical, moving at the same speed and hit exactly square on.
Mind you, there will be so many variables that a situation precisely like that will never occur.
Actually, no. The force of impact and energy involved would (in theory) be identical, hence consequent damage would be similar. Assuming the other car was indentical, moving at the same speed and hit exactly square on.
Mind you, there will be so many variables that a situation precisely like that will never occur.Was referring to the fact that the cars will break apart as they're designed to do with crumple zones etc
walpurgis
14-01-2019, 09:45
Was referring to the fact that the cars will break apart as they're designed to do with crumple zones etc
That will make no difference. It will still be the same result for each car as a single one hitting a wall.
Think of the point of impact as a fixed (immovable) vertical plane, as it theoretically is in both cases.
walpurgis
14-01-2019, 09:57
This is a rather good illustration of what happens when a fast moving object hits an immovable (almost) one.
F4 Phantom jet into concrete wall at 500 mph: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk
It just disappears! (in bits :))
This is a rather good illustration of what happens when a fast moving object hits an immovable (almost) one.
F4 Phantom jet into concrete wall at 500 mph: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk
It just disappears! (in bits :))Exactly my point [emoji6]
It's all to do with the absorption of kinetic energy.
Two cars impacting head on will absorb some each, not exactly the same each as that's almost impossible due to impact point and weight distribution.
However a car hitting a solid concrete wall/block will absorb more of the kinetic energy produced than the concrete will and as a result suffer more damage than reach of the cars above.
Take it to the ridiculous, would you rather crash into a ten ton concrete block or a ten ton marshmallow?
Ok I know one is tastier [emoji23]
walpurgis
14-01-2019, 10:33
However a car hitting a solid concrete wall/block will absorb more of the kinetic energy produced than the concrete will and as a result suffer more damage than reach of the cars above
No.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.