{
 "schema_version": "0.4",
 "id": "REG-0016",
 "title": "Benavides v. Tesla: a jury assigns a third of the responsibility for a 2019 Autopilot crash to the maker of the system, Miami, 1 August 2025",
 "batch": "B2",
 "family": "physical",
 "context": {
  "domain": "Driver-assistance automation (Level 2)",
  "autonomy_level": "supervised",
  "actor_type": "Physical: Tesla Model S with Autopilot engaged",
  "actors": {
   "count": 1,
   "text": "1 system; 1 supervising driver",
   "roles": [
    "defender"
   ]
  },
  "mandate_context": "production",
  "jurisdiction": [
   "United States (S.D. Florida, federal jury)"
  ],
  "autonomy_level_text": "Machine assists, human supervises",
  "mandate_context_text": "Production"
 },
 "provenance_tier": "public_regulatory",
 "status": "confirmed",
 "fields": [
  {
   "layer": "Mandate",
   "facet": "principal",
   "value": "The driver, under the owner's manual's warnings; Tesla as designer and seller",
   "assertion_type": "interpretation",
   "source_ids": [
    "CC",
    "ECF534"
   ],
   "confidence": "high",
   "disputed": false
  },
  {
   "layer": "Mandate",
   "facet": "objective",
   "value": "Driver assistance with cruise control; the owner's manual warned that Autopilot was primarily intended for highways and freeways",
   "assertion_type": "assertion",
   "source_ids": [
    "CC"
   ],
   "confidence": "high",
   "disputed": false
  },
  {
   "layer": "Mandate",
   "facet": "disclosed to supervisor",
   "value": "Warnings existed in the owner's manual; the jury nonetheless assigned a third of the responsibility to Tesla. The Register does not know the jury's reasons",
   "assertion_type": "interpretation",
   "source_ids": [
    "CC",
    "SDFL"
   ],
   "confidence": "medium",
   "disputed": false
  },
  {
   "layer": "Actor",
   "facet": null,
   "value": "Autopilot on a 2019 Model S",
   "assertion_type": "fact",
   "source_ids": [
    "ECF612",
    "CC"
   ],
   "confidence": "high",
   "disputed": false
  },
  {
   "layer": "Inputs",
   "facet": null,
   "value": "A T-intersection at the end of Card Sound Road in Key Largo; the driver had dropped his phone and was looking for it",
   "assertion_type": "assertion",
   "source_ids": [
    "CC"
   ],
   "confidence": "high",
   "disputed": false
  },
  {
   "layer": "Decision",
   "facet": null,
   "value": "Plaintiffs alleged the car detected the stop sign and obstacles but gave no warning and never braked; Tesla's position is that the driver was pressing the accelerator, which overrode Autopilot, and that the car continuously warned him that pressing the accelerator had turned off cruise-control braking and gave a take-over warning 1.5 seconds before impact",
   "assertion_type": "assertion",
   "source_ids": [
    "CC",
    "ECF603"
   ],
   "confidence": "medium",
   "disputed": true
  },
  {
   "layer": "Envelope",
   "facet": "constraints",
   "value": "The owner's manual said Autopilot is primarily intended for highways and freeways and should not be used on city streets; it could nonetheless be engaged on this road",
   "assertion_type": "assertion",
   "source_ids": [
    "CC"
   ],
   "confidence": "medium",
   "disputed": false
  },
  {
   "layer": "Envelope",
   "facet": "basis",
   "value": "Whether engagement should have been technically restricted to the intended roads was at issue in the case; the Register has not seen the trial evidence on it",
   "assertion_type": "interpretation",
   "source_ids": [
    "CC",
    "ECF603"
   ],
   "confidence": "low",
   "disputed": false
  },
  {
   "layer": "Action",
   "facet": null,
   "value": "With the driver pressing the accelerator, the speed rose to about 62 mph, overriding the 45 mph cruise setting; the car went through the intersection and hit a parked Tahoe, which was pushed into two pedestrians",
   "assertion_type": "assertion",
   "source_ids": [
    "CC"
   ],
   "confidence": "high",
   "disputed": false
  },
  {
   "layer": "Outcome",
   "facet": null,
   "value": "State: harm. One fatality, one serious injury. Verdict: Tesla 33% responsible; Tesla's share of compensatory damages $42.57 million, plus $200 million in punitive damages; judgment of $242.57 million against Tesla. As of Mar 2026.",
   "assertion_type": "fact",
   "source_ids": [
    "SDFL",
    "ECF612"
   ],
   "confidence": "high",
   "disputed": false
  },
  {
   "layer": "Evidence",
   "facet": "event",
   "value": "What crash data existed and when Tesla held it was contested at trial; Tesla's post-trial brief says the court ruled the data was not withheld in bad faith",
   "assertion_type": "assertion",
   "source_ids": [
    "ECF603"
   ],
   "confidence": "medium",
   "disputed": true
  },
  {
   "layer": "Evidence",
   "facet": "interpretation",
   "value": "The evidence question (what data existed and who held it) was part of the case at trial; the Register records it as contested, not as an established fact or intent",
   "assertion_type": "interpretation",
   "source_ids": [
    "ECF603",
    "ECF612"
   ],
   "confidence": "medium",
   "disputed": false
  },
  {
   "layer": "Recovery",
   "facet": "automated fallback",
   "value": "No automatic stop: the car did not stop before the intersection. Whether it signalled a hand-off is disputed: plaintiffs allege it gave no alert and never braked; Tesla says it continuously warned that cruise control would not brake while the accelerator was pressed and gave a take-over warning 1.5 seconds before impact",
   "assertion_type": "interpretation",
   "source_ids": [
    "CC",
    "ECF603"
   ],
   "confidence": "medium",
   "disputed": true
  },
  {
   "layer": "Recovery",
   "facet": "accountability",
   "value": "Judgment against Tesla on a 33% share; the driver settled separately and was not a defendant. Tesla's post-trial motions were denied on 20 February 2026 and it appealed to the Eleventh Circuit on 16 March 2026",
   "assertion_type": "fact",
   "source_ids": [
    "SDFL",
    "ECF616",
    "CC"
   ],
   "confidence": "high",
   "disputed": false
  }
 ],
 "controls": {
  "failed": [
   {
    "id": "C-M2",
    "note": "Driver attention as the envelope",
    "confidence": "high",
    "basis": "curated"
   },
   {
    "id": "C-E2",
    "note": "Design-domain restriction (engagement allowed off-domain); Hard geofence to the design domain (absent)",
    "confidence": "medium",
    "basis": "curated"
   }
  ],
  "succeeded": [
   {
    "id": "C-V1",
    "note": "Vehicle data capture (the data survived on the car's Autopilot computer and was obtained for trial after a dispute over whether Tesla had withheld it)",
    "confidence": "medium",
    "basis": "curated"
   }
  ],
  "absent": [
   {
    "id": "C-D2",
    "note": "Stop at end-of-road",
    "confidence": "medium",
    "basis": "curated"
   }
  ]
 },
 "applicable_rules": [
  "State product liability and negligence law",
  "NHTSA Standing General Order (post-2021 reporting; not applicable to the 2019 crash)"
 ],
 "unmapped": [],
 "corrections": [
  {
   "date": "2026-10-13",
   "field": "controls.C-E2",
   "old": "failed: Design-domain restriction (engagement allowed off-domain); absent: Hard geofence to the design domain",
   "new": "failed: Design-domain restriction (engagement allowed off-domain); Hard geofence to the design domain (absent)",
   "reason": "a control has one state per case; entries in two states merged into the state the record supports"
  },
  {
   "date": "2026-10-13",
   "field": "fields and sources",
   "old": "crash facts, design domain, and data-recovery claim cited to the final judgment; 'first jury verdict against Tesla over Autopilot in a wrongful-death case'; appeal pending",
   "new": "judgment linked for the verdict only; crash facts typed as press-reported assertions; data claim recorded as contested at trial; 'first verdict' removed (not in the record); post-trial motions denied and appeal filed, from the docket",
   "reason": "claims aligned to what each linked record says, found on review"
  },
  {
   "date": "2026-10-13",
   "field": "fields",
   "old": "decision, design-domain basis and jury reasoning stated without a source; 'about 60 mph' striking two people; driver's share 'two thirds'; data claim without Tesla's side",
   "new": "plaintiffs' allegation and Tesla's position both recorded; manual wording quoted; driver's accelerator input and the Tahoe recorded; driver settled; court's bad-faith ruling noted",
   "reason": "independent check against the linked records before right-of-reply letters"
  },
  {
   "date": "2026-10-14",
   "field": "reviewed_by",
   "old": "none",
   "new": "Saurabh Bhatnagar (editor)",
   "reason": "case checked by the editor against its linked records"
  },
  {
   "date": "2026-10-14",
   "field": "named_parties[Tesla].right_of_reply",
   "old": "{\"offered\": null, \"response\": null}",
   "new": "{\"offered\": \"2026-10-14\", \"response\": null}",
   "reason": "right of reply offered by email from register@secureautonomous.com to press@tesla.com on 14 October 2026 (confirmed in the Sent folder); recorded at the editor's instruction"
  },
  {
   "date": "2026-10-16",
   "field": "inference.value",
   "old": "The Register's accountability count changes with this case: responsibility reached the maker of the automation, not only the operator or the supervising human",
   "new": "With this case, accountability reached the maker of the automation, not only the operator or the person supervising it.",
   "reason": "Reworded for readers before the editor's sign-off, after an outside review found it read as internal notes; the interpretation itself is unchanged"
  },
  {
   "date": "2026-10-16",
   "field": "controls.C-E2.confidence",
   "old": "high",
   "new": "medium",
   "reason": "Found in an outside review of the published record on 16 October 2026: the Register has not seen the trial evidence on this point and the verdict is under appeal"
  },
  {
   "date": "2026-10-16",
   "field": "inference.value",
   "old": "With this case, accountability reached the maker of the automation, not only the operator or the person supervising it.",
   "new": "Here a jury held the maker of a driver-assistance system partly responsible, with punitive damages, not only the driver. With the Boeing case, it is one of two cases where accountability reached the maker of the automation.",
   "reason": "Found in an outside review of the published record on 16 October 2026: the interpretation implied this was the first case to reach a maker, overlooking the Boeing case (REG-0009)"
  },
  {
   "date": "2026-10-20",
   "field": "inference.value",
   "old": "Here a jury held the maker of a driver-assistance system partly responsible, with punitive damages, not only the driver. With the Boeing case, it is one of two cases where accountability reached the maker of the automation.",
   "new": "Here a jury held the maker of a driver-assistance system partly responsible, with punitive damages, not only the driver. It is the Register's only case so far in which a jury, rather than a regulator or prosecutor, placed responsibility on the maker of the automation. The judgment is under appeal, and the verdict form does not show the jury's reasons.",
   "reason": "Found in the editor's source re-check of 19-20 October 2026: the second sentence ('With the Boeing case, it is one of two cases where accountability reached the maker of the automation') is contradicted by the Register's own records: accountability also reached the makers of the automation in the Cruise case (REG-0003: NHTSA consent order and civil penalty, deferred prosecution agreement with the US Attorney's Office and criminal fine, DMV permit suspension, CPUC penalty) and the Knight Capital case (REG-0007: SEC penalty, censure and cease-and-desist), as well as the Boeing case (REG-0009: Department of Justice deferred prosecution agreement). A search of every object in objects/ (REG-0001 to REG-0037) and objects/withdrawn for 'jury', 'verdict' and 'punitive' finds them only in this case, so the replacement sentence is checked against the Register: the other makers were reached by regulators or prosecutors, and the Air Canada tribunal (REG-0010) and the Workday ruling (REG-0020) were decided by a tribunal and a judge, not a jury. The jury verdict form (ECF No. 534) apportions 33% to Tesla and 67% to the driver, George McGee, and awards punitive damages; it records answers and amounts, not reasons. Tesla's notice of appeal (ECF No. 616) shows the judgment is under appeal. The interpretation was signed by the editor on 2026-10-19; signed_by and signed_on are set to null and the editor must sign the new wording"
  },
  {
   "date": "2026-10-20",
   "field": "inference.source_ids",
   "old": "[\"SDFL\"]",
   "new": "[\"SDFL\", \"ECF534\", \"ECF616\"]",
   "reason": "Found in the editor's source re-check of 19-20 October 2026: the verdict form (ECF No. 534, new source) carries the apportionment between Tesla and the driver and the punitive-damages finding; the notice of appeal (ECF No. 616) carries the appeal"
  },
  {
   "date": "2026-10-20",
   "field": "fields.Mandate.principal",
   "old": "{\"value\": \"The driver, under Tesla's terms of use; Tesla as designer and seller\", \"source_ids\": [\"SDFL\"]}",
   "new": "{\"value\": \"The driver, under the owner's manual's warnings; Tesla as designer and seller\", \"source_ids\": [\"CC\", \"ECF534\"]}",
   "reason": "Found in the editor's source re-check of 19-20 October 2026: no source mentions 'terms of use'; CarComplaints reports the owner's manual warnings ('the Model S owner's manual clearly warns that Autopilot ...'), and the jury verdict form (ECF No. 534) asks whether 'Tesla place[d] the 2019 Model S on the market with a defect'. The final judgment (SDFL) does not mention the driver or the manual, so it is no longer cited"
  },
  {
   "date": "2026-10-20",
   "field": "fields.Actor.source_ids",
   "old": "[\"SDFL\", \"CC\"]",
   "new": "[\"ECF612\", \"CC\"]",
   "reason": "Found in the editor's source re-check of 19-20 October 2026: the final judgment (SDFL) does not mention Autopilot or the Model S; the court's order of February 2026 (ECF No. 612, new source) says McGee owned 'a 2019 Tesla Model S' 'equipped with automatic driving features, one of which Tesla termed \"Autopilot\"', so the fact is cited to that court record"
  },
  {
   "date": "2026-10-20",
   "field": "fields.Decision",
   "old": "{\"value\": \"Plaintiffs alleged the car detected the stop sign and obstacles but gave no warning and never braked; Tesla's position is that the driver was pressing the accelerator, which overrode Autopilot\", \"source_ids\": [\"CC\"]}",
   "new": "{\"value\": \"Plaintiffs alleged the car detected the stop sign and obstacles but gave no warning and never braked; Tesla's position is that the driver was pressing the accelerator, which overrode Autopilot, and that the car continuously warned him that pressing the accelerator had turned off cruise-control braking and gave a take-over warning 1.5 seconds before impact\", \"source_ids\": [\"CC\", \"ECF603\"]}",
   "reason": "Found in the editor's source re-check of 19-20 October 2026: the field gave the plaintiffs' allegation of no warning without Tesla's answer to it; Tesla's post-trial reply (ECF No. 603) says 'his vehicle continuously warned him that he had deactivated cruise-control braking by pressing the accelerator' and describes a '[t]ake over immediately' collision warning 1.5 seconds before impact. Both accounts are now stated; the field stays disputed"
  },
  {
   "date": "2026-10-20",
   "field": "fields.Envelope.basis.source_ids",
   "old": "[\"CC\"]",
   "new": "[\"CC\", \"ECF603\"]",
   "reason": "Found in the editor's source re-check of 19-20 October 2026: CarComplaints does not say that restricting engagement was itself litigated; Tesla's post-trial reply (ECF No. 603) does: the plaintiffs' design-defect claim rested on three theories, 'operational design domain, driver monitoring system, and automatic emergency braking/forward collision warning', and their expert 'faulted Tesla for not geofencing Autopilot'. Cited for the claim as worded"
  },
  {
   "date": "2026-10-20",
   "field": "fields.Outcome.source_ids",
   "old": "[\"SDFL\"]",
   "new": "[\"SDFL\", \"ECF612\"]",
   "reason": "Found in the editor's source re-check of 19-20 October 2026: the final judgment (SDFL) gives the amounts but not the injuries; the court's order of February 2026 (ECF No. 612) states the crash killed Benavides Leon and caused 'significant injuries to Angulo' and confirms the $242,570,000.00 judgment"
  },
  {
   "date": "2026-10-20",
   "field": "fields.Evidence.interpretation.source_ids",
   "old": "[\"SDFL\"]",
   "new": "[\"ECF603\", \"ECF612\"]",
   "reason": "Found in the editor's source re-check of 19-20 October 2026: the final judgment (SDFL) says nothing about evidence; Tesla's post-trial reply (ECF No. 603) records that the plaintiffs told the jury Tesla 'deleted ... the file', and the court's order (ECF No. 612) records Tesla's challenge to 'the improper admission of data-related evidence obtained from the Vehicle', which it denied"
  },
  {
   "date": "2026-10-20",
   "field": "fields.Recovery.automated fallback",
   "old": "{\"value\": \"None; no stop or hand-off at the road's end\", \"confidence\": \"high\", \"disputed\": false, \"source_ids\": [\"SDFL\"]}",
   "new": "{\"value\": \"No automatic stop: the car did not stop before the intersection. Whether it signalled a hand-off is disputed: plaintiffs allege it gave no alert and never braked; Tesla says it continuously warned that cruise control would not brake while the accelerator was pressed and gave a take-over warning 1.5 seconds before impact\", \"confidence\": \"medium\", \"disputed\": true, \"source_ids\": [\"CC\", \"ECF603\"]}",
   "reason": "Found in the editor's source re-check of 19-20 October 2026: 'None; no stop or hand-off' was cited to the final judgment, which says nothing about the car's behaviour, and stated the plaintiffs' side only. CarComplaints reports the allegation that the car gave no alert and never engaged its emergency brakes and that McGee drove through the intersection; Tesla's post-trial reply (ECF No. 603) says the car 'continuously warned him that he had deactivated cruise-control braking' and gave a '[t]ake over immediately' warning 1.5 seconds before impact. Both accounts stated, marked disputed, confidence lowered to medium"
  },
  {
   "date": "2026-10-20",
   "field": "outcome.cost",
   "old": "~$243M verdict against Tesla (appeal pending)",
   "new": "~$243M judgment against Tesla (appeal pending)",
   "reason": "Found in the editor's source re-check of 19-20 October 2026: $242.57 million is the judgment against Tesla after the 33% apportionment (final judgment, ECF No. 538; order, ECF No. 612); the jury's verdict itself was $129 million in compensatory damages ($59 million and $70 million, ECF No. 612 footnote 1) plus $200 million in punitive damages, so 'verdict' was the wrong word for the $243 million figure"
  },
  {
   "date": "2026-10-20",
   "field": "controls.C-V1",
   "old": "Vehicle data capture (eventually produced)",
   "new": "Vehicle data capture (the data survived on the car's Autopilot computer and was obtained for trial after a dispute over whether Tesla had withheld it)",
   "reason": "Found in the editor's source re-check of 19-20 October 2026: 'eventually produced' implied Tesla produced the data, which the record does not show. Tesla's post-trial reply (ECF No. 603) says the plaintiffs' experts acknowledged 'nothing's really deleted' from the Autopilot computer in McGee's vehicle, that the court found no bad faith and no prejudice 'by the delay in getting the data', and that a Tesla technician 'accidently deleted this file' from Tesla's own servers; the court's order (ECF No. 612) refers to 'data-related evidence obtained from the Vehicle'. Bucket and confidence unchanged"
  },
  {
   "date": "2026-10-20",
   "field": "sources.CC.title",
   "old": "CarComplaints, 'Miami Tesla Autopilot trial: jury verdict', August 2025 (trial reporting)",
   "new": "CarComplaints, 'Miami Tesla Autopilot Trial: $329 Million Jury Verdict', David A. Wood, 1 August 2025 (first published 23 July 2025 during the trial)",
   "reason": "Found in the editor's source re-check of 19-20 October 2026: the page's headline is 'Miami Tesla Autopilot Trial: $329 Million Jury Verdict', by David A. Wood, dated August 1, 2025, with 'The original story is below' dated July 23, 2025; the old title was a paraphrase without the author"
  },
  {
   "date": "2026-10-20",
   "field": "sources.ECF603.interest",
   "old": null,
   "new": "defendant's own filing (Tesla)",
   "reason": "Found in the editor's source re-check of 19-20 October 2026: ECF No. 603 is filed by Tesla's counsel ('Attorneys for Defendant Tesla, Inc.' / 'Defendant Tesla, Inc.'s Reply'), so it carries the defendant's interest"
  },
  {
   "date": "2026-10-20",
   "field": "sources.ECF616.interest",
   "old": null,
   "new": "defendant's own filing (Tesla)",
   "reason": "Found in the editor's source re-check of 19-20 October 2026: ECF No. 616 is filed by Tesla's counsel ('Attorneys for Defendant Tesla, Inc.' / 'Defendant Tesla, Inc.'s Reply'), so it carries the defendant's interest"
  },
  {
   "date": "2026-10-20",
   "field": "sources.ECF534",
   "old": null,
   "new": "{\"title\": \"Jury Verdict Form, Benavides v. Tesla, Inc., No. 21-cv-21940-BLOOM/Torres (S.D. Fla.), ECF No. 534, 1 August 2025\", \"type\": \"court\", \"url\": \"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.593426/gov.uscourts.flsd.593426.534.0.pdf\", \"via_press\": false, \"date\": \"2025-08-01\", \"tier\": \"public_regulatory\", \"interest\": null, \"primary\": true, \"checked\": \"2026-10-20\"}",
   "reason": "Found in the editor's source re-check of 19-20 October 2026: added as the primary record of the apportionment: the jury's answers give 'Tesla 33 %' and 'George McGee 67 %', find McGee negligent, and find punitive damages warranted against Tesla (handwritten answers read from the scanned form)"
  },
  {
   "date": "2026-10-20",
   "field": "sources.ECF612",
   "old": null,
   "new": "{\"title\": \"Order on Amended Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or, Alternatively, Motion for New Trial, Benavides v. Tesla, Inc., No. 21-cv-21940-BLOOM/Torres (S.D. Fla.), ECF No. 612 (signed 19 Feb 2026, entered 20 Feb 2026)\", \"type\": \"court\", \"url\": \"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.593426/gov.uscourts.flsd.593426.612.0.pdf\", \"via_press\": false, \"date\": \"2026-02-19\", \"tier\": \"public_regulatory\", \"interest\": null, \"primary\": true, \"checked\": \"2026-10-20\"}",
   "reason": "Found in the editor's source re-check of 19-20 October 2026: added as the court's own record that the verdict stands: it denies Tesla's post-trial motion, finding 'the evidence admitted at trial more than supports the jury verdict', and names the Vehicle as a 2019 Model S with 'Autopilot'"
  },
  {
   "date": "2026-10-28",
   "field": "named_parties[Tesla].right_of_reply",
   "old": "{\"offered\": \"2026-10-14\", \"response\": null, \"assessed_through\": \"2026-10-22\", \"assessments\": [{\"through\": \"2026-10-22\", \"date\": \"2026-10-22\", \"by\": \"editor's call of 22 October 2026 on the rule 19 review by four independent agents (reports rule19_1 to rule19_4); GitHub (REG-0005) judged borderline and not triggering\", \"triggered\": [], \"note\": \"no correction since the offer adds or worsens a claim about this party in words that are not its own\"}]}",
   "new": "{\"offered\": \"2026-10-14\", \"response\": null, \"assessed_through\": \"2026-10-22\", \"assessments\": [{\"through\": \"2026-10-22\", \"date\": \"2026-10-22\", \"by\": \"editor's call of 22 October 2026 on the rule 19 review by four independent agents (reports rule19_1 to rule19_4); GitHub (REG-0005) judged borderline and not triggering\", \"triggered\": [], \"note\": \"no correction since the offer adds or worsens a claim about this party in words that are not its own\"}], \"no_response_as_of\": \"2026-10-28\"}",
   "reason": "right of reply recorded by a human"
  }
 ],
 "created": "2026-10-06",
 "last_reviewed": "2026-10-28",
 "actor_status": "confirmed",
 "provenance_tier_text": "Court",
 "status_text": "Confirmed; under appeal",
 "outcome": {
  "state": "harm",
  "severity": "fatality and serious injury",
  "affected_parties": [
   "one pedestrian killed",
   "one injured"
  ],
  "cost": "~$243M judgment against Tesla (appeal pending)",
  "regime_consequence": "jury verdict with punitive damages",
  "as_of": "Mar 2026",
  "derived_by": "backfill-curated"
 },
 "inference": {
  "value": "Here a jury held the maker of a driver-assistance system partly responsible, with punitive damages, not only the driver. It is the Register's only case so far in which a jury, rather than a regulator or prosecutor, placed responsibility on the maker of the automation. The judgment is under appeal, and the verdict form does not show the jury's reasons.",
  "source_ids": [
   "SDFL",
   "ECF534",
   "ECF616"
  ],
  "confidence": "high",
  "signed_by": "Saurabh Bhatnagar",
  "signed_on": "2026-10-21"
 },
 "named_parties": [
  {
   "name": "Tesla",
   "right_of_reply": {
    "offered": "2026-10-14",
    "response": null,
    "assessed_through": "2026-10-22",
    "assessments": [
     {
      "through": "2026-10-22",
      "date": "2026-10-22",
      "by": "editor's call of 22 October 2026 on the rule 19 review by four independent agents (reports rule19_1 to rule19_4); GitHub (REG-0005) judged borderline and not triggering",
      "triggered": [],
      "note": "no correction since the offer adds or worsens a claim about this party in words that are not its own"
     }
    ],
    "no_response_as_of": "2026-10-28"
   }
  }
 ],
 "sources": {
  "SDFL": {
   "title": "Final Judgment, Benavides v. Tesla, Inc., No. 21-cv-21940-BLOOM/Torres (S.D. Fla.), ECF No. 538 (signed 1 Aug 2025, entered 4 Aug 2025)",
   "type": "court",
   "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.593426/gov.uscourts.flsd.593426.538.0_1.pdf",
   "via_press": false,
   "date": "2025-08-01",
   "tier": "public_regulatory",
   "interest": null,
   "primary": true,
   "checked": "2026-10-13"
  },
  "CC": {
   "title": "CarComplaints, 'Miami Tesla Autopilot Trial: $329 Million Jury Verdict', David A. Wood, 1 August 2025 (first published 23 July 2025 during the trial)",
   "type": "press_pointer",
   "url": "https://www.carcomplaints.com/news/2025/miami-tesla-autopilot-trial-jury-verdict.shtml",
   "via_press": true,
   "date": "2025-08-01",
   "tier": "press",
   "interest": null,
   "primary": false,
   "checked": "2026-10-13"
  },
  "ECF603": {
   "title": "Benavides v. Tesla, S.D. Fla., ECF No. 603, Tesla's reply in support of its post-trial motion, 7 November 2025",
   "type": "court",
   "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.593426/gov.uscourts.flsd.593426.603.0.pdf",
   "via_press": false,
   "date": "2025-11-07",
   "tier": "public_regulatory",
   "interest": "defendant's own filing (Tesla)",
   "primary": true,
   "checked": "2026-10-13"
  },
  "ECF616": {
   "title": "Benavides v. Tesla, S.D. Fla., ECF No. 616, Tesla's notice of appeal to the Eleventh Circuit, 16 March 2026",
   "type": "court",
   "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.593426/gov.uscourts.flsd.593426.616.0.pdf",
   "via_press": false,
   "date": "2026-03-16",
   "tier": "public_regulatory",
   "interest": "defendant's own filing (Tesla)",
   "primary": true,
   "checked": "2026-10-13"
  },
  "ECF534": {
   "title": "Jury Verdict Form, Benavides v. Tesla, Inc., No. 21-cv-21940-BLOOM/Torres (S.D. Fla.), ECF No. 534, 1 August 2025",
   "type": "court",
   "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.593426/gov.uscourts.flsd.593426.534.0.pdf",
   "via_press": false,
   "date": "2025-08-01",
   "tier": "public_regulatory",
   "interest": null,
   "primary": true,
   "checked": "2026-10-20"
  },
  "ECF612": {
   "title": "Order on Amended Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or, Alternatively, Motion for New Trial, Benavides v. Tesla, Inc., No. 21-cv-21940-BLOOM/Torres (S.D. Fla.), ECF No. 612 (signed 19 Feb 2026, entered 20 Feb 2026)",
   "type": "court",
   "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.593426/gov.uscourts.flsd.593426.612.0.pdf",
   "via_press": false,
   "date": "2026-02-19",
   "tier": "public_regulatory",
   "interest": null,
   "primary": true,
   "checked": "2026-10-20"
  }
 },
 "derived_by": "backfill-curated",
 "reviewed_by": "Saurabh Bhatnagar (editor)"
}