The plaintiff will argue that Tesla's decision-making process prioritized profit over safety. This approach led to the deployment of a technology that, while advanced, was fundamentally flawed in its design and implementation. The marketing of the FSD system as "Full SelfDriving" created unrealistic expectations among consumers. It implied a level of autonomy that the technology simply did not possess. This misrepresentation directly contributed to the tragic accident that took the Dryerman family's lives.

The plaintiff will present expert testimony from automotive engineers who will explain how the FSD system failed to comply with safety standards. They will argue that the system's design was not only defective but also dangerous. The fact that the FSD system could allow a vehicle to steer itself into a concrete barrier is a clear indication of design failure. Expert witnesses will also discuss the lack of adequate fail-safes that should have been in place to prevent such catastrophic outcomes.

The plaintiff’s case will highlight the emotional toll on the surviving family members. Losing loved ones in such a preventable manner has left a lasting impact on their mental health and well-being. The testimony of family members will convey the depth of their grief and the profound sense of loss they have experienced. The impact on their lives is immeasurable, and they deserve justice for the negligence that led to their family's deaths.

Additionally, the plaintiff will present evidence of prior incidents involving Tesla’s FSD system. By showing a pattern of failures and accidents, they can argue that Tesla was aware of the risks associated with their technology. This historical context will serve to strengthen their claim that the company acted recklessly by continuing to market the FSD system without addressing its flaws.

The marketing campaign for the FSD system will also be scrutinized. The plaintiff will argue that Tesla's advertisements created a false sense of security. They will present marketing materials that emphasize the supposed capabilities of the FSD system, contrasting them with the reality of its performance. The disconnect between what Tesla promised and what the technology could deliver is a key component of the plaintiff's argument.

Moreover, the plaintiff will argue that Tesla failed to provide sufficient training or guidance for users of the FSD system. This lack of education contributed to drivers misusing the technology, believing it to be more autonomous than it actually was. The reliance on vague warnings and disclaimers does not absolve Tesla of its responsibility to ensure that consumers understand how the system works and its limitations.

Defendant's Argument: Tesla Should Not Be Held Liable for the Fatal Crash Involving Full SelfDriving FSD

The defendant argues that the Full SelfDriving (FSD) system is a Level 2 advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) that requires constant driver supervision. Tesla's user manuals and onscreen warnings clearly state that drivers must remain attentive and ready to take control at any moment. The responsibility ultimately rests with the driver to monitor the vehicle’s operation. This responsibility is reinforced by Tesla's explicit instructions, which are designed to ensure that drivers understand the limitations of the FSD system.