— A Tesla Model 3 wrongful death lawsuit alleges that the door handles, automatic emergency braking system and battery defects caused a crash and fire, serious injury to the driver and the death of the passenger.
According to the lawsuit, plaintiff Jeffery L. Dennis was driving a 2018 Tesla Model 3 with his wife Wendy Dennis in the passenger seat in Tacoma, Washington.
Without driver intervention, the Model 3 would have gone out of control and crashed into a utility pole, although the automatic emergency braking function was not activated.
The January 2023 crash caused a fire that sent bystanders to the Model 3 in an attempt to get the couple out of the vehicle, but the door handles reportedly did not work. In addition, the fire prevented bystanders from breaking a window with a baseball bat.
Ms. Dennis died as a result of the crash that same day and Mr. Dennis suffered severe burns to his legs and other injuries.
According to the Pierce County Medical Examiner’s Office, Ms. Dennis died from multiple blunt force injuries.
The Tesla lawsuit alleges that the interior door handles were broken due to a loss of electricity during the Model 3 crash. This would require a manual interior release to open a front door, with the release located next to the buttons on the door.
However, the lawsuit claims that Tesla must pay because the occupants were not warned about the “hidden manual release.”
The Tesla door handle lawsuit also names other alleged “defects” that caused the crash, including sudden unintended acceleration, design flaws in the automatic emergency braking system and defects in the high-voltage battery that caught fire in the crash.
Tesla Model 3 Crash Lawsuit – Tesla’s Response
The automaker told the judge it is not responsible for the crash or any injuries and fully disputes the allegations in the door handle case. Tesla claims there was nothing defective with the Model 3, but Tesla’s primary response concerns a claim for damages.
Punitive damages are intended solely to punish a company for alleged misconduct, which in some cases can result in billions of dollars.
This has recently been evidenced by a $1.7 billion judgment against Ford over a shattered truck roof, a separate $2.5 billion judgment against Ford in another judgment over Ford’s truck roof collapse, and a $1 billion judgment against Mitsubishi over a 25-year-old seat belt.
In other words: a company is terrified of a claim for damages, and in the case of the Model 3 crash, according to Tesla, there should not even be any damages.
The door handle lawsuit was filed in Washington state, but the plaintiffs are pursuing a claim for damages under California law.
According to Tesla, there is a clear reason for this. Washington law does not allow punitive damages without express authorization from the Legislature.
But Tesla told the judge that since California’s damages law applies to this door handle case, the related two-year statute of limitations on the damages claim should also apply.
“Here, plaintiffs allege that the crash occurred on January 7, 2023. But plaintiffs did not file their complaint until nearly three years later, on November 21, 2025. Plaintiffs’ claim for damages is therefore out of time because it was filed long after the applicable two-year statute of limitations had expired. What happened to the Dennises is a tragedy, but under applicable, binding law, their claim for damages must be dismissed.” — Tesla
Tesla further refers to a separate case (Desranleau vs. Hyland’s) where a court faced nearly identical circumstances when the lawsuit was filed in Washington, but included a damages claim from California. In that lawsuit, the court affirmed the dismissal of California’s punitive damages claim that had begun more than two years after the incident.
The Tesla door handle lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington: Jeffery L. Dennis, et al, v. Tesla, Inc.
The plaintiffs are represented by Rivera Law Offices, PLLS and Peggy Underbrink.
#Tesla #pleads #door #handle #lawsuit #allegations