Hacker Recovers ‘Missing’ Tesla Autopilot Data; Miami Jury Orders $243 Million in 2019 Fatal Crash Case
Federal jurors found Tesla partially liable after a security researcher extracted a “collision snapshot” from the vehicle’s Autopilot computer that the company had said was missing.
A Miami federal jury has ordered Tesla to pay $243 million after jurors concluded the electric‑vehicle maker was partially liable for a 2019 crash in Key Largo, Florida, that killed a 22‑year‑old woman and seriously injured her boyfriend.
Jurors were shown a “collision snapshot” — data recorded by the vehicle in the moments before the crash — that Tesla had told the court it could not locate until a security researcher extracted the file from the car’s Autopilot computer. The extraction occurred outside Tesla’s control, according to trial evidence presented to the jury.
The crash occurred in 2019 in Key Largo and killed Naibel Benavides Leon, 22. Her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo, was seriously injured. Plaintiffs’ attorneys argued that the data recovered from the Autopilot system contradicted Tesla’s account of events and supported their claim that shortcomings in the company’s driver‑assist technology contributed to the fatal collision.
Tesla had maintained during the case that the crash was caused entirely by the vehicle’s driver, identified at trial as George McGee, who acknowledged he was using Autopilot. Company lawyers disputed plaintiffs’ theories of system malfunction and contested liability throughout the proceedings.
Jurors were shown technical evidence and testimony describing how the vehicle’s systems recorded the snapshot in the moments before impact. Plaintiffs’ attorneys said the snapshot revealed data that Tesla had failed to produce and that the recovered material was decisive in persuading jurors that the company shared responsibility for the crash.
The case highlights tensions over access to and preservation of vehicle data in litigation over advanced driver‑assistance systems. Security researchers and plaintiffs’ lawyers have argued that cars with sophisticated sensors and onboard computers routinely capture detailed telemetry and imagery that can be critical to reconstructing crashes. Automakers have countered that data can be complex to extract and that available records may be incomplete.
Legal experts said the verdict could affect how courts evaluate evidence in cases involving automated driving features, including whether third‑party data extraction is admissible and how juries weigh disputed technical records. The decision also adds to ongoing public and regulatory scrutiny of driver‑assist systems, which have been the subject of multiple lawsuits and inquiries into safety and marketing practices.
The verdict, returned last month in federal court in Miami, awarded compensatory and punitive damages to the victims’ families. Court records and trial testimony provided the basis for jurors’ deliberations. The case is among several high‑profile civil actions that have tested how emerging automotive technologies are treated in the U.S. legal system.
The outcome may prompt automakers and suppliers to reassess data management policies, preservation practices, and disclosure procedures when incidents involving autonomous or semi‑autonomous systems occur. It also underscores the potential evidentiary role of materials harvested from vehicle systems by independent researchers.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs characterized the recovered snapshot as a turning point in the trial. Tesla’s defense emphasized driver responsibility and contested the plaintiffs’ interpretations of the technical data. The company’s stance at trial reflected broader disputes over the reliability of both human and automated controls in complex driving environments.
The case will likely be cited in future litigation and policy discussions as courts and regulators confront the intersection of vehicle technology, data access and accountability.