bad title:

  After the verdict, jurors told Reuters that the electric-vehicle maker clearly warned that the partially automated driving software was not a self-piloted system, and that driver distraction was to blame. 

the jury found tesla not liable for the crash because it sufficiently warns drivers that autopilot is incapable of safely driving on its own. it /did/ fail, but the driver should have expected it

Can it really fail to do something that it isn't designed to do? Like does cruise control "fail" when it doesn't stop at a stop sign?

That's weird because the article also says the plaintiffs argument was that the autopilot drove the car I to the curb, not that it disengaged.

I don't see how a company can just have a blanket disclaimer that says a product can fail in a fatal way, and be in the clear.

I think Tesla ultimately got cleared because the driver activated Autosteer (without FSD Beta) within city limits, and the car manual, delivery sheet, & several warnings on the UI they entered into evidence explicitly said not to do this.

So the question is whether those warnings were adequate. Other vendors such as Toyota tell you the same thing in the manual, but have a “dumb lock” on Auto Lane Keep so that it refuses to activate until you’re going over the city speed limit of 35mph. Expectation for a tech car should maybe be different- I would be appalled if GM, for example, just let customers activate SuperCruise on unmapped highways.

From an engineering POV your customers should have minimal (ideally zero) ability to unknowingly put themselves in danger, barring inherently bad driving that has nothing to do with the car itself.

agreed, but: in the ruling, the judge cites a separate law that encourages US courts to cooperate with foreign courts for the purposes of information finding:

>Glassdoor is headquartered in this district, and under 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a), a district court can order persons within the district to produce discovery "for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal." >Given Glassdoor's focus on the merits of Zuru's defamation claim, first this must be noted: § 1782(a), the governing statute, doesn't require the Court to evaluate the merits of Zuru's claim before ordering Glassdoor to produce discovery in furtherance of it. >Congress enacted § 1782(a) "to provide federal-court assistance in gathering evidence for use in foreign tribunals." Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 247 (2004). The statute is generous and reflects a hope that if federal courts assist with foreign litigation, foreign courts will do the same when the tables are turned. See ZF Auto. US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd., 142 S. Ct. 2078, 2088 (2022) ("[T]he animating purpose of § 1782 is comity: Permitting federal courts to assist foreign and international governmental bodies promotes respect for foreign governments and encourages reciprocal assistance.").

This makes sense, and is in fact a US law. So the judge doesn't have to interpret NZ law, just rule that there's a valid reason for a "discovery" request.

not in Illinois: here, after whoever arrived first goes, the right of way goes to whoever is to their right (or, next, going counter clockwise), regardless when they arrived (as long as they arrived before the first car went)