– A Tesla -Rechtszaak brought in New Jersey claims that David W. Dryman, 54, Michele D. Dryerman 54 and Brooke H. Dryerman, 17, were killed because the Tesla Model S was defective.
The Tesla right case was filed by the son of the Dryerman, Max, who was not in the Model S when it crashed.
According to the first police report:
“On September 14, 2024, A Single Motor Vehicle crash occurred on the Garden State Parkway in Woodbridge Township, Middlesex County. Preliminary Investigation Revealed that David W. Dryman was Operating A 2024 Tey. Right Seat Passenger Michele D. Dryman and Left Rear Passenger Brooke H. Dryerman, the Drogerman Tesla ran from the road to the left, hit a traffic sign support, a metal guide rail and a concrete bridge support. New Jersey Police Crash Investigation Report
The plaintiff claims that the Tesla Model S was not crashworthy and David Dryerman should have been warned about the restrictions of the director’s assistance systems.
The lawsuit claims that the Model S did not have the possibility to “absorb reasonable collision forces and with sufficient occupant security systems”, is something that claims the lawsuit “inexplicable, negligent, reckless and did not make crashworthy and unreasonably dangerous and defect.”
The Tesla would not realize that it went off the road and that the car did not automatically return to the lane. The lawsuit also claims that there was no warning that the Model S would throw in the concrete bridge support.
The plaintiff also claims that the car should not even have gained concrete support if the brakes had automatically stopped the Model S.
The Dryman -Rechtszaak also claims that all these Systems of Model S systems were defective.
Forward collision warning
Lane Departure Avoidance
Emergency Lane departure
Car
Obstacle -conscious gear
Acceleration and/or pedal incorrect application restriction
Warning of the
Automatic emergency braking
Tesla’s response to Dryerman v. Tesla
In a response of 21 pages to the Dryman Crash-Rechtszaak, Tesla repeatedly denies claims of misconduct or responsibility for the crash of the model and the death of the Drymanman family.
According to Tesla, it admits that the certain vehicles exchanged with functions of the driver’s aid that are called Autopilot, but Tesla claims that the functions of functions the Model S have not made a “self -driving” car.
Tesla also claims that it was not reckless or negligent, and “further denies that his vehicles are not crashworthy and are unreasonably dangerous and defective.”
The car manufacturer also denies that it is unable to offer sufficient warnings about the vehicle and driver assistance systems, and Tesla denies that any wrong representation has made things with regard to the S. Model of the Droogman.
By responding to dozens of allegations in Dryerman’s lawsuit, Tesla wrote every time, ‘refused’.
According to the court case:
“There was a practical and feasible alternative design that would have reduced or prevent damage and that due to the incorrectly designed or omitted alternative, the product was not reasonably safe as manufactured or sold.”
Tesla’s response to that statement:
‘Denied. Tesla denies that his vehicle or one of his functions was defective in any way or that any defects caused or contributed to the alleged injuries of claimants or claimed compensation. Tesla also denies that his vehicle is not in accordance with the express guarantees that Tesla. To the extent a further confirming reaction, Tesla denies that the allegations in this section have been denied. “
Tesla also claims that it is not responsible for performing other parties and cannot be held liable.
“The incident, injuries and compensation that complained, were caused by the unauthorized, unintended or incorrect use or abuse, excessive use or abuse of the vehicle and claimants’ decenters to exercise reasonable and ordinary care, caution or vigilance in the use of the aforementioned product.” – Tesla
Tesla says it requires a process from jury.
The crash procedure of the Tesla model was brought to the American court for the New Jersey district (Camden Vicinage): Max Dryman, et al., V Tesla, Inc.
The claimants are represented by Anapol Weiss.
Tesla is represented by Bowman and Brooke LLP.
#Tesla #denies #responsibility #deaths #Dryerman #Tesla