In 2018, Mallory Harcourt, heavily pregnant and the possessor of a Tesla Model X, encountered a nightmarish ordeal that cast doubts on the vehicle’s proclaimed safety attributes. On December 27, 2018, just two days after Christmas and four after their purchase, Harcourt’s 2-year-old son was able to start the car, leading to the vehicle moving forward and hitting her at their home in Santa Barbara, California.
This incident instigated a legal dispute wherein a jury trial will ascertain if Tesla bears responsibility for consumer deception by allegedly misrepresenting the safety of the Model X and for purported flaws in its software architecture.
The dire situation faced by Harcourt unfurled as she parked her Tesla in the driveway, leaving the driver’s side partially open as she ventured indoors to retrieve her house keys. During her brief departure, her son entered the vehicle, precipitating its activation. The Model X lurched forward toward Harcourt at a speed of more than 8 mph.
Despite her frantic endeavors to intervene, the automobile surged towards her, inflicting grievous injuries, including multiple fractures. Hastened to the hospital, she subsequently delivered her infant prematurely due to the trauma incurred.
In response to Harcourt’s lawsuit, Tesla vigorously contested any allegations of flaws in the Model X. Rather, Tesla contended that Harcourt’s lack of supervision over her child was the primary cause of the accident. The company maintained that the advanced driver assistance systems in the vehicle were instrumental in reducing the severity of the incident. According to Tesla’s argument, these systems independently slowed down the car and switched it to park mode once the child released control of the accelerator pedal.
The trial, which commenced on April 11, holds significant implications in adjudicating Tesla’s culpability for the collision. Harcourt seeks restitution for medical expenses, emotional distress, and other associated damages. This legal skirmish unfolds against a backdrop of heightened scrutiny concerning Tesla’s vehicular safety, exemplified by a recent settlement in California involving the demise of an Apple engineer in a Model X accident while under autopilot.
Ultimately, the outcome of this trial will not only impact Harcourt’s quest for justice but also elucidate the obligations of automotive manufacturers in ensuring the safety of their products and the accountability for mishaps involving advanced technologies akin to those embedded in Tesla’s vehicles.
