![](\"https:\/\/www.insurancejournal.com\/app\/uploads\/2023\/09\/tesla-vehicles-charge-at-station-in-california-AP-580x387.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/www.insurancejournal.com\/app\/uploads\/2023\/09\/tesla-vehicles-charge-at-station-in-california-AP-scaled.jpg\")
<\/div>\nA Tesla engineer in court on Wednesday rejected a lawyer\u2019s suggestion that the company named its driver-assistant feature \u201cFull Self-Driving\u201d because it wanted people to believe that its systems had more abilities than was really the case.<\/p>\n
The electric-vehicle maker is defending itself at the first U.S. trial over allegations that Tesla\u2019s Autopilot feature led to a death. The lawsuit, filed in a California state court, alleges the Autopilot system caused owner Micah Lee\u2019s Model 3 to suddenly veer off a highway east of Los Angeles at 65 miles per hour (105 kph), strike a palm tree and burst into flames, all in the span of seconds.<\/p>\n
The 2019 crash killed Lee and seriously injured his two passengers. The lawsuit accuses Tesla of knowing that Autopilot and other safety systems were defective when it sold the car.<\/p>\n
Tesla denies the claims, saying it is not even clear whether Autopilot was engaged at the moment Lee\u2019s car crashed.<\/p>\n
The EV maker has been testing and rolling out its Autopilot and more advanced Full Self-Driving (FSD) system, which Chief Executive Elon Musk has touted as crucial to his company\u2019s future but which has drawn regulatory and legal scrutiny.<\/p>\n
Plaintiffs\u2019 Attorney Cites \u2018Experimental Vehicles\u2019 in Tesla Trial Over Autopilot Fatality<\/a><\/p>\n The 37-year-old Lee bought Tesla\u2019s \u201cfull self-driving capability package\u201d for $6,000 for his Model 3 in 2019. At that time, the FSD package performed functions such as maintaining distance from a vehicle in front and keeping the car within the lane, Tesla engineer Eloy Rubio Blanco testified in court on Wednesday. The automaker later added more advanced features to the system.<\/p>\n During his testimony, Rubio rejected a suggestion from Lee\u2019s attorney that the company chose the name \u201cFull Self-Driving\u201d because it hoped the public would think its vehicles had more features.<\/p>\n \u201cDo I think our drivers think that our vehicles are autonomous? No,\u201d Rubio said, according to a trial transcript seen by Reuters.<\/p>\n However, Rubio also acknowledged that Tesla vehicles sold in 2019 might have \u201clatent defects\u201d due to the complexity of the vehicle software.<\/p>\n He said Tesla\u2019s driver-assistant system \u201chas a series of limitations,\u201d which is why a driver should override the system when needed. For example, he said an object might be detected inaccurately, leading the car to decelerate. In certain situations, he said, the automatic braking might be insufficient to avoid a collision.<\/p>\n Tesla asked that Rubio\u2019s testimony be kept private due to trade secrets. The judge ejected that request, though he shut down the court\u2019s live audio feed during Rubio\u2019s appearance.<\/p>\n (Reporting by Dan Levine and Hyun-Joo Jin in San FranciscoEditing by Matthew Lewis)<\/em><\/p>\n Photo: Tesla vehicles charge at a station in Emeryville, Calif., Aug. 10, 2022. In a document posted Tuesday, Aug. 1, 2023, U.S. auto safety regulators opened another investigation into safety problems with Tesla vehicles concerning loss of steering control or loss of power steering in the 2023 Models 3 and Y electric vehicles. (AP Photo\/Godofredo A. V\u00e1squez, File)<\/em><\/p>\n Topics<\/span> Personal Auto<\/a> Tesla<\/a> <\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n Was this article valuable?<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n