Hacker Recovers ‘Missing’ Tesla Autopilot Data, Miami Jury Orders $243 Million in 2019 Crash Case

A federal jury in Miami ordered Tesla to pay $243 million after evidence recovered from a Tesla Autopilot computer contradicted the company’s assertion that critical pre‑crash data were missing in a 2019 fatal crash, jurors and court records show.

The verdict, delivered last month, held Tesla partially liable for the Key Largo, Florida, wreck that killed 22‑year‑old Naibel Benavides Leon and left her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo, seriously injured. Jurors were shown a “collision snapshot” — a short recording from the vehicle’s systems taken moments before impact — that Tesla had told investigators and plaintiffs’ lawyers was not available until a third party extracted it from the car’s Autopilot computer.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys said the data was retrieved by an independent researcher who accessed the vehicle’s Autopilot module while at a public location, producing a file that showed system behavior in the seconds before the collision. Defense lawyers for Tesla had maintained the company could not find the same data on its servers or within the vehicle’s accessible logs and argued at trial that the crash resulted entirely from driver error.

The case centers on a 2019 crash in which the Tesla involved struck a parked vehicle, killing Benavides Leon and seriously injuring Angulo. The driver, George McGee, testified that he was using Tesla’s Autopilot at the time of the crash, a detail jurors considered alongside the recovered collision snapshot and other evidence presented at trial.

Jurors found Tesla partially responsible, concluding that information recorded by the car’s systems — but not produced by the company during earlier phases of the litigation — was relevant to whether the vehicle’s driver‑assistance software performed as intended. The jury’s award of roughly $243 million covers damages claimed by the families of the victims.

The revelation that a third party could extract the collision snapshot prompted renewed scrutiny in court over Tesla’s data retention practices and the company’s cooperation with discovery requests. Plaintiffs’ lawyers argued at trial that the extracted file was preserved by Tesla’s own systems but was not previously disclosed, while Tesla countered that it had searched its records and found nothing matching the plaintiffs’ descriptions.

The trial proceedings unfolded against a broader backdrop of litigation and regulatory interest in advanced driver‑assistance systems. Regulators, safety advocates and some lawmakers have repeatedly questioned how such systems are marketed, how they log and retain data, and what drivers are told about their limitations. Crash investigations in multiple jurisdictions have examined whether system behavior can be reconstructed from vehicle logs and other electronic records.

Legal experts said the Miami verdict could have implications for future lawsuits involving automated driving features, particularly where disputes arise over the existence and accessibility of vehicle data. The case underscores the challenges courts face when technical evidence is central to determining liability and when third‑party forensic work uncovers information that parties dispute.

Court filings and trial testimony detailed technical efforts to extract and analyze the Autopilot module’s files. Attorneys for the plaintiffs used that material to challenge the company’s narrative about the event and to argue that the system either did not behave as represented or failed to provide necessary warnings.

The jury’s decision represents a substantial award in a case involving automated driving technology and highlights the evidentiary role that in‑vehicle data can play in litigation. The verdict may prompt further legal and regulatory scrutiny of how automakers preserve and produce system data after crashes, and it could influence how companies document the operation and limitations of driver‑assistance features.

The parties may pursue post‑trial motions and appeals. The broader debate over automated systems’ safety, consumer disclosure and data practices is likely to continue as more cases make their way through courts and as regulators evaluate oversight of advanced driver‑assistance technologies.