Tesla has won a significant legal battle as a California state court jury cleared the company of the allegations that its Autopilot feature was responsible for a fatal crash. This verdict marks Tesla’s second win in 2023, with juries refusing to find fault in the automaker’s software despite growing lawsuits against its autonomous driving systems in the United States. This is a pivotal victory for Tesla and its supporters who have been pushing for the widespread adoption of autonomous vehicles.

The lawsuit stemmed from a 2019 accident in Riverside County, where two passengers in a Tesla Model 3 lost their lives. They had accused Tesla of knowingly selling a defective Autopilot system. In response, Tesla argued that human error was the root cause of the tragic incident.

Following four days of deliberation, a 12-member jury declared that the vehicle did not have a manufacturing defect, with a final vote of 9-3. This verdict is significant, considering the intense scrutiny on Tesla’s Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (FSD) systems, championed by CEO Elon Musk as pivotal to the company’s future.

The accident involved the Model 3 suddenly veering off the highway, striking a palm tree, and bursting into flames, causing the death of the vehicle’s owner, Micah Lee, and inflicting serious injuries on the passengers, including a young boy. The plaintiffs had sought $400 million in damages, plus punitive charges.

Tesla vigorously denied responsibility and suggested that Lee had consumed alcohol before the crash. The automaker also raised doubts about whether Autopilot was engaged at the time of the incident.

Legal experts noted that this case was distinct from previous lawsuits against Tesla, where plaintiffs argued that Autopilot was inherently flawed, leading to driver misuse. In this instance, the jury’s focus was solely on assessing whether a manufacturing defect impacted the vehicle’s steering.

The trial featured dramatic testimonies about the passengers’ injuries and an internal Tesla safety analysis from 2017, which identified “incorrect steering command” as a potential issue. Tesla countered by explaining that this analysis was meant to preemptively address any potential problems and that the company had since implemented safety measures to prevent similar incidents.

This victory follows another successful Tesla trial in Los Angeles earlier this year. In that case, the company maintained that it had adequately warned drivers to monitor their vehicles despite the Autopilot and Full Self-Driving labels, shifting blame to driver distraction in an accident where a Model S swerved into a curb.

Tesla’s legal victories add a layer of complexity to the ongoing debate surrounding autonomous driving technology and its role in accidents. While some argue that it underscores the importance of clear driver responsibilities, others find the situation concerning, given the substantial stakes involved in the development and implementation of autonomous systems on the roads.