What We’re Reading
GM robotaxi unit Cruise offers $75,000 to resolve crash probe (Reuters, January 8, 2024)
In its ongoing efforts to assuage California regulators in the wake of its purported failure to disclose critical details of a pedestrian crash involving a self-driving car, General Motors’ Cruise robotaxi unit has offered to pay $75,000 to resolve a pending investigation by the California Public Utilities Commission. Cruise is scheduled to appear at a Feb. 6 hearing to address claims that it misled the commission “through omission” as to the seriousness of the accident and for “misleading public comments.”
As part of the settlement offer, Cruise also offered to significantly bolster the frequency and content of its reporting of collisions to the commission. Cruise said it “is committed to undertaking significant process improvements with respect to its interactions with regulators” and “committed to increased transparency, cooperation, and rebuilding regulatory trust with the commission.”
Tesla recalls more than 1.6 million cars in China over problems with Autopilot, locks (CNBC, January 5, 2024)
On the heels of its recall of approximately 2 million vehicles in the U.S., Tesla recently announced that it is similarly recalling more than 1.6 million cars in China to fix problems with the “misuse” of Autopilot features and concerns that, during a crash, the noncollision side door will unlock. Tesla plans to issue an over-the-air software update to address both issues. According to Chinese regulators, the recall impacts Model S, Model X, Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
Elon Musk defeats bid to be questioned in Tesla fatal crash lawsuit (Reuters, January 3, 2024)
In a rare legal victory for Tesla in Florida, the 4th District Court of Appeal in West Palm Beach held that lawyers for the plaintiff could not depose Elon Musk in a wrongful death case arising from a 2018 fatal high-speed crash involving a Tesla Model S. Specifically, the court held that Musk could not be questioned regarding a call he had with the driver’s father after the accident
Citing the high bar faced by attorneys seeking to question top corporate officials and government leaders, the appeals court found Musk had no “unique, personal knowledge” that would justify compelling him to appear for a deposition. The appeals court added that Musk had already provided sworn testimony in the case that he did not recall discussing any issues pertinent to the alleged cause of the accident during his phone call with the driver’s father.
The case is Tesla Inc v. Edgar Monserratt, as personal representative of the Estate of Edgar Monserratt Martinez, Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal, No. 4D2023-2075.