- cross-posted to:
- technology@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- technology@beehaw.org
A Florida judge found “reasonable evidence” that Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk and other managers knew the automaker’s vehicles had a defective Autopilot system but still allowed the cars to be driven unsafely, according to a ruling.
Do we have probability numbers yet for likelihood of accident? And if so, would that satisfy “extremely likely?” The letter of the law can be fickle.
When you have millions of units on the road, a one in a billion chance of the error killing someone on a drive is pretty much a guarantee.
I don’t know if that’s the reasoning that will hold up in court. Would a judge say a 1 in a billion chance is "extremely likely? That reasoning would apply to all cars in general wouldn’t it? Driving is potentially dangerous no matter what car you drive. People are guaranteed to die in car accidents everyday just by sheer volume and that would be true if Tesla didn’t exist.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not apologizing for them. I’m just dubious of getting a conviction.
It’s not that people die crashing them, or even that a manufacturing/software defect causes the deaths.
It’s that Tesla knew that there was a software error that would almost certainly cause somebody to die, and intentionally chose not to address the issues for financial reasons. That’s textbook depraved indifference.
Reminds me of that cost of a recall calculation scene from Fight Club.
And that’s exactly why the depraved indifference rule exists.
Are there any famous examples of that being used?
Schlitterbahn waterpark is a fairly recent high-profile example.
The designers of the water coaster and co-owner of the park were charged with murder because they knew the ride was lethally dangerous and kept it running.
In fact, they’d paid off people hurt in other near-death accidents to keep quiet.
Thanks for the example! I’ll definitely check that out.