TALLAHASSEE – A federal appeals court that sidked with Tesla in a dispute over the design of the car’s battery system on Friday, when the 18-year-old driver was due to a fiery fatal crash after driving 116 mph.
A three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld the district court’s decision in a lawsuit filed in May 2018 by Barrett Riley’s father, who lost control of the 2014 Tesla Model S at the Florida A1A in Fort Lauderdale. After the crash, the car fired at the death of Riley and passenger Edgar Montserrat Martinez.
The lawsuit focuses on the decision in March 2018 to activate the speed “limiter,” which prevented Riley’s parents from turning the speed “limiter” to Tesla mechanics more than 85 miles, according to the ruling Friday. However, young Riley returned to the mechanic a few weeks later and removed the limiter.
The 2022 ju apprentice discovered that Tesla was negligent in the matter and awarded $10.5 million in damages. However, under what is known as “comparative flaws,” Tesla says it is only 1% liable and should pay $105,000.
Meanwhile, the judge also granted summary judgment to Tesla on allegations that the walls of the electric vehicle’s battery cells were not thick enough to prevent a fire in a collision, and that there was no fire delaying agent to stop the fire from being sprayed in the pack that holds the battery. According to opinions on Friday, Riley died not because of the impact of the crash, but because the car caused a fire.
In Tesla’s ruling, the lower judge ruled out expert witnesses’ testimony on the battery cell wall issue, finding that expert opinions were “not enough to show that Barrett survived the fire, but appears due to the vast lack of (fire protection) material.”
The appeal to the Atlanta-based Court of Appeals focused on the fire issue and whether Tesla was designed to be defective. The appeal did not include the issue of speed limits.
In supporting the Lower Court ruling, for example, the panel said plaintiff battery expert Ralph White had no indication that the lack of fire extinguishing agent caused Riley’s death.
“Dr. White testified that intumescent materials were able to prevent the fire from spreading into the intact battery in the battery pack,” said the opinions shared by Judge William Pryor and judges Britt Grant and Robert Luck.
“But Barrett died in a fire that began when the Tesla battery was crushed during a high-speed crash. The problem is that Dr. White did not testify that Barrett survived the fire that began with a crash in terms of the crash. Materials intubated into his Tesla battery pack.”
According to opinions, at the time of the accident, Riley was trying to get his friend’s car to pass, moving at 116 mph on the curve.
“This is when he lost control and was swung around in the right lane,” the opinion stated. “The Tesla, still travelling at about 90 mph, hit the curb and installed the edge, hit the passenger door against a concrete wall, bounced off another concrete wall, and returned completely to the A1A, with Barrett’s Tesla cutting across five traffic volumes. The collision, Tesla by the time it rested, swallowed the front end of the car.”
