1 EDWARD C. CHEN (CA SBN 312553) LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD C. CHEN

3y ago
31 Views
2 Downloads
999.33 KB
45 Pages
Last View : 16d ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Hayden Brunner
Transcription

Case 5:20-cv-02926-SVK Document 1 Filed 04/28/20 Page 1 of 45123456789EDWARD C. CHEN (CA SBN 312553)edward.chen@edchenlaw.comLAW OFFICES OF EDWARD C. CHEN1 Park Plaza, Suite 600Irvine, CA 92614Telephone: (949) 287-4278Facsimile: (626) 385-6060JOEL GREER (pro hac vice pending)joel.greer@zelojapan.comNATHANIEL RESISENBERG (pro hac vice pending)nathan.reisenburg@zelojapan.comZELO (FOREIGN LAW JOINT ENTERPRISE)NTT Hibiya Building 8F1-1-6 Uchisaiwaicho, Chiyoda-kuTokyo 100-0011Telephone: 81 3 6868 67701011Attorneys for Plaintiffs12UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT13FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA14SAN JOSE DIVISION15161718TOMOMI UMEDA, an individual, onbehalf of herself and as successor in interest toYOSHIHIRO UMEDA, deceased, and MIYUUMEDA, individually and on behalf of herselfand as heir to YOSHIHIRO UMEDA, deceased,19Plaintiffs,2021222324v.TESLA, INC. dba TESLA MOTORS, INC. andDOES 1-10, inclusive,25262728DefendantCase No.: 5:20-cv-2926COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES1. STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY: DESIGN DEFECTS2. STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY: FAILURE TOWARN3. NEGLIGENCE4. WRONGFUL DEATH5. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM6. SURVIVAL ACTIONJURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 5:20-cv-02926-SVK Document 1 Filed 04/28/20 Page 2 of 451234567891011TABLE OF CONTENTSI. INTRODUCTION . 1II. PARTIES . 6III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE . 6IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS . 9A. World’s First Tesla Autopilot-Related Pedestrian Fatality: The April 29, 2018 AccidentInvolving a Tesla Model X Vehicle and Mr. Umeda in Kanagawa, Japan . 9B. Tesla’s Method of Measuring Steering Wheel Torque to Determine Driver Engagement is aFatally Defective Flaw in Tesla’s Autopilot Driver Monitoring System . 12C. Driver Inattentiveness and Drowsiness in Overreliance on Autonomous Driving Technologiessuch as Tesla’s Autopilot System is Common. 24D. Tesla’s Autopilot Technology and Driver Assistance Features are Defective and Incapable ofHandling Common Driving Scenarios . 2612E. Tesla’s Defective Forward-Facing Cameras and Sensors and its Failure to Adopt MoreEffective Means of Detecting Physical Objects. 3013V. CAUSES OF ACTION . 3414COUNT I . 3415Strict Products Liability (Design Defects) .161718COUNT II . 37Strict Products Liability (Failure To Warn) .COUNT III . 37Negligence .19COUNT IV. 3820Wrongful Death .21COUNT V . 4022Loss Of Consortium .23COUNT VI. 41Survival Action .2425262728VI. REQUEST FOR RELIEF. 41VII. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED . 43

Case 5:20-cv-02926-SVK Document 1 Filed 04/28/20 Page 3 of 45121.345Plaintiffs Tomomi Umeda and Miyu Umeda, individually and on behalf of the Estate ofYoshihiro Umeda, deceased (“Plaintiffs”) by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby bring thisComplaint against Defendant Tesla, Inc. (“Tesla”) and Does 1-10, inclusive, and allege as follows:I. INTRODUCTION62.7This case concerns the first Tesla Autopilot-related death involving a pedestrian – Mr.8Yoshihiro Umeda, a Japanese citizen and 44-year-old husband and father – and Tesla’s accountability for9introducing its vehicles and allowing the use of its automated driving technologies that are still in the10“beta-testing” stage of development. However noble the pursuit of increasing driver safety for all may11ultimately be, such pursuit cannot continue to be left unchecked and without modern regulations that12adequately monitor and ensure the overall safety of automated driver assistance systems. This is especially13true where the price to be paid for any technological defects and failures of these systems in real-world14driving situations comes at the cost of severe harm, danger, and even death. By not holding developers,15like Tesla, who are at the helm of developing such cutting-edge technologies such as Tesla’s Autopilot1617system, it is inevitable that without action, the first Tesla Autopilot-related death involving a pedestriancertainly will not be the last.181920212223242526127281Screenshot taken of dash camera video recording from vehicle traveling behind the Tesla Model X,zoomed in.1COMPLAINTCASE NO.: 5:20-CV-2926

Case 5:20-cv-02926-SVK Document 1 Filed 04/28/20 Page 4 of 45123456789101112131415216173.On April 29, 2018, on an expressway near Tokyo, Japan, Tesla Model X vehicle with18Autopilot on suddenly accelerated when the car in front of it switched lanes in a common, textbook “cut-19out” situation. The Tesla Model X crashed into a van, motorcycles and pedestrians that had stopped on20212223the side of the expressway, fatally striking and killing Mr. Umeda in the first Tesla Autopilot-related (andsecond autonomous vehicle-related death) involving a pedestrian. The driver of the Tesla Model X wasfound to have been dozing shortly before the crash, and Tesla will expectedly lay all of the blame for thistragic accident on this individual. However, Tesla cannot escape from its liabilities, responsibilities, and24duties that it owed specifically here, to Plaintiffs and the decedent, Yoshihiro Umeda, and to all those that2526share the road with its vehicles, for at least three of the following reasons.27282Screenshot taken from a dashcam installed on the Tesla Model X vehicle. The Tesla Model X vehicleis not parked behind the group of objects, but rather, is accelerating towards them (as can be seen at thebottom right-hand corner (24km/h)) and thereafter crashing into them. Records from the Tesla ModelX’s Event Data Recorder (EDR) indicated that the vehicle had accelerated to approximately 38.1 km/hprior to impact.2COMPLAINTCASE NO.: 5:20-CV-2926

Case 5:20-cv-02926-SVK Document 1 Filed 04/28/20 Page 5 of 4512345674.First, the accident highlights the patent defect of Tesla’s Autopilot technology and suite ofdriver assistance features, particularly in regards to Tesla’s driver monitoring system, which relies ontracking driver-applied changes to the steering wheel torque to detect whether the driver’s hands are onthe wheel. Here, according to Tesla’s own data log, the driver of the Tesla Model X had both hands onthe steering wheel right before and when the incident occurred. Despite the fact that the driver wasoperating the Tesla Model X as instructed, with both hands on the steering wheel, for nearly thirty minutes8before the incident, Tesla’s driver monitoring system did not issue any alerts as the driver began to lose9focus on driving as he began to doze off. Tesla has been aware of and has long known that driver10inattentiveness and drowsiness is a risk keyed to overreliance on autonomous driving technologies such11as Tesla’s Autopilot system.125.Despite this knowledge, Tesla has refused to implement superior mechanisms to monitor13drivers such as driver-facing cameras and sensors to detect eye and/or head movement to check driver14awareness, instead relying on its defective method of tracking driver-applied changes to the steering wheel15torque. Still, to this day, Tesla continues to rely upon the same, ineffective method of measuring the levels16of driver engagement by determining steering-wheel torque. Tesla’s blatant refusal to adopt or incorporate17additional safeguards and methods in which driver awareness, alertness, and engagement are effectively18monitored serves as testament to the lack of meaningful regulatory oversight of Tesla’s development of192021its Autopilot system and the related suite of technologies that run together with it. Tesla intentionallychose not to implement additional, more effective, methods to detect driver engagement and must be heldliable where it has long known of the risks and dangers that are inherent to the development of autonomous22vehicle technology.2324252627286.Second, in this case when the vehicle in front of the Tesla Model X switched lanes theTesla Autopilot suite of technologies failed to recognize the stationary van, motorcycles, and pedestriansahead and engage the automatic emergency braking system. Instead, the Tesla Model X automaticallybegan to accelerate to the preset cruising speed before crashing into these objects and people and killingMr. Umeda. Despite knowing that common lane switching scenarios involving “cut-out” and “cut-in”3COMPLAINTCASE NO.: 5:20-CV-2926

Case 5:20-cv-02926-SVK Document 1 Filed 04/28/20 Page 6 of 4512situations is something that drivers will almost always certainly encounter, Tesla failed to developreasonable measures and safeguards against the dangers that these types of scenarios present to drivers.3Specifically, Tesla failed to develop adequately safe software that would require affirmative action from4567the driver, such as requiring that the driver confirm by taking some type of action to indicate that the roadahead is indeed clear and free of any objects, cars, or pedestrians. Tesla’s failure to implement thesesoftware and coding enabled features and requirements to its driver assistance features detracts from the8encouragement of driver safety and attention. These failures are especially egregious where Tesla knows9the specific limitations and issues with its Autopilot technology and suite of driver assistance features yet10continues to widely tout and suggest to world that its cars are essentially autonomous. Punitive and11exemplary damages are necessary to deter this conduct and preliminary injunctive relief must be granted12here when doing so will prevent any further risks of loss of human life.137.Third, Tesla’s system is fatally flawed and is a half-baked, non-market-ready product that14requires the constant collection of data in order to improve upon the existing virtual world that Tesla is15trying to create. The inherent problem and issue with Tesla’s Autopilot technology and suite of driver16assistance features is that this technology will inevitably be unable to predict every potential scenario that17lie ahead of its vehicles. In other words, in situations that occur in the real world but are uncommon and18have not been “perceived” by Tesla’s system, or in “fringe cases” involving specific scenarios that the192021system cannot or has not processed before and pose a great risk to human safety such as in the instantcase, actual deaths will occur. While Tesla is a proponent of this natural, organic method of collectingand processing data by using AI, there are alternative methods such as the use of light detection and radar22technologies (LIDAR) that would come closer to the zero margin of error that should be the standard.232425262728Tesla was undeniably aware of the problems inherent within the method it has chosen to utilize in itspursuit for autonomous vehicles.8.Tesla’s decision to release a half-baked product to the public that is currently still in a“beta-testing” stage of development continues to put the general public, other motorists, and all of thosewho share the road with Tesla’s vehicles, including pedestrians and the drivers of Tesla’s vehicles4COMPLAINTCASE NO.: 5:20-CV-2926

Case 5:20-cv-02926-SVK Document 1 Filed 04/28/20 Page 7 of 45123themselves, at risk of becoming the next casualty (for Tesla, it would likely be viewed as merely just a4small statistic that should be overlooked in comparison to its pursuit of creating a full-self driving vehicle).5Tesla should be held culpable for its conduct and acts committed in marketing its vehicles with reckless6disregard for motorists and the general public around the world.78910119.Prior to and after the fatal crash and death of Mr. Umeda, Tesla knew or should have knownthat it was selling a dangerously defective product. Despite having such knowledge of the potential formisuse and risks associated with its Autopilot system, Tesla has refused to recall its cars and continues tofail to take any corrective measures. Reasonable and cost-effective measures exist, but Tesla simplychooses not to implement them. The consequences of Tesla’s liability therefore go beyond compensation121314to the family of the deceased here and extend to drivers and the general public wherever Tesla markets itsvehicles.10.1516Could the first case of a Tesla Autopilot-related pedestrian fatality have been avoided?While it will not change the reality of the loss for Plaintiffs Tomomi and Miyu Umeda, the answer to the17question is undeniably yes. If Tesla’s past behavior of blaming its vehicles’ drivers is any example, Tesla18likely will portray this accident as the sole result of a drowsy, inattentive driver in order to distract from19the obvious shortcomings of its automated driver assistance technology.320baseless. Mr. Umeda’s tragic death would have been avoided but for the substantial defects in Tesla’s21Autopilot system and suite of technologies, Tesla’s knowing and intentional release of a technology that22is still in the “beta-testing” stage, Tesla’s willful disregard of recommendations by government safety23regulators, and Tesla’s ongoing failure to take reasonable steps to design and sell a product to consumers24that utilizes existing safer alternatives, including Tesla’s resistance to employing readily available and25easily incorporated superior methods to monitor driver engagement and Tesla’s unmerited defiance26Any such effort would beagainst adopting the use of LIDAR technology.2728Lee, Timothy B. “Tesla Blames Driver in Last Month’s Crash with Autopilot Engaged” April 12,2018, ars Technica. erfect/) (last visited Apr. 19, 2020).35COMPLAINTCASE NO.: 5:20-CV-2926

Case 5:20-cv-02926-SVK Document 1 Filed 04/28/20 Page 8 of 451II. PARTIES211.Plaintiff Tomomi Umeda, individually and on behalf of the Estate of Yoshihiro Umeda,3deceased, is the spouse of Yoshihiro Umeda. Plaintiff Tomomi Umeda is an adult citizen and resident of4Japan.5678912.Plaintiff Miyu Umeda, individually and on behalf of the Estate of Yoshihiro Umeda,deceased, is the daughter of Yoshihiro Umeda, and was a minor at the time of the incident. Plaintiff MiyuUmeda is currently an adult citizen and resident of Japan.13.Defendant Tesla, Inc., d/b/a/ Tesla Motors, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with itsheadquarters and principal place of business in Palo Alto, California.1014.1112131415Tesla is an automobile manufacturer of electric vehicles and designs, manufactures,markets, distributes and sells exclusively electric vehicles with Tesla’s proprietary Autopilot technology.Tesla ratified every act, omission, or other alleged conduct herein, thereby proximately causing the injuriesand damages incurred by Plaintiffs and decedent Yoshihiro Umeda.15.Upon information and belief, DOES 1-10 are individuals and corporations with their16primary place of business or residence in California, or who directed their activities towards the State of17California and/or have minimum contacts with the State.1816.Plaintiffs are informed, believe and hereby allege that each defendant named herein as19DOES 1-10 are those persons, individuals, corporations, other legal entities, and/or successor-in-interest20of any of those entities described above and herein, whose wrongful conduct either caused or contributed21to the causing of harm, injury, and damage to Plaintiffs.2223242526III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE17.Plaintiffs bring this action and the instant complaint under federal diversity jurisdictionpursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1332 and complete diversity between all parties herein exists. Tesla is aDelaware corporation with its principal place of business in Palo Alto, California. Plaintiffs are Japanesecitizens and residents of Japan. The amount in controversy exceeds 75,000.2718.On information and belief, Tesla was, and is at all material times hereto, in the business of28manufacturing, designing, testing, assembling, supplying, selling, exporting and distributing its Model S,6COMPLAINTCASE NO.: 5:20-CV-2926

Case 5:20-cv-02926-SVK Document 1 Filed 04/28/20 Page 9 of 4512X, 3, and Y vehicles, and Tesla’s Autopilot technology and suite of driver assistance features. Tesla’sheadquarters office is located within this judicial district and in the city of Palo Alto, California. On3further information and belief, since 2012, Tesla designed, manufactured, distributed, marketed and sold4567the Tesla Model S and X vehicles in the United States, with the largest concentration of both vehiclesbeing sold in the State of California, as well as in other countries including Japan.19.On information and belief, through Tesla’s publicly filed financial reports and its website,8Tesla’s design, testing, and manufacturing of its vehicles, including the Class Vehicles at its headquarters9in California and throughout the State of California. Tesla’s advertising, promotional materials, and10website are designed to show the operation of various Tesla vehicles in a manner which emanates that its11vehicles are from California. Tesla also utilizes promotional videos which are purporting to show the12operation of Model S, X, and other Tesla vehicles being operated and driven in California. On further13information and belief, Tesla, develops, designs, tests, assembles, supplies, sells, collects date, and14otherwise makes decisions as to the implementation of its use and policies regarding its Autopilot15technology and suite of driver assistance features in the State of California, with most, if not all of the key16decisions regarding the same having emanated from this judicial district.171819202120.Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a substantial p

the side of the expressway, fatally striking and killing Mr. Umeda in the first Tesla Autopilot-related (and second autonomous vehicle-related death) involving a pedestrian. The driver of the Tesla Model X was found to have been dozing shortly before the crash, and Tesla will expectedly lay all of the blame for this

Related Documents:

Elgar, Edward Pomp & Circumstance March No.4 Op.39 no.4 Kalmus Elgar, Edward Romance for bassoon and orchestra Kalmus Elgar, Edward Salut d'amour Kalmus Elgar, Edward Sea pictures : Op.37 Kalmus Elgar, Edward Serenade for string orchestra Breitkopf Elgar, Edward Sospiri Breitkopf Elgar, Edward The Music Makers Kalmus

Authors Introduction Eclipse (Edward) was the final book of the Twilight Saga that I rewrote from Edward ullens point-of-view. Though I never intended to pen the whole saga through Edwards eyes, once you [ve written the second half of Midnight Sun, all of Breaking Dawn (Edward), and New Moon (Edward), you can [t not complete the one remaining book. I began writing Edward [s version of Eclipse .

EDWARD JONES ADVISORY SOLUTIONS Fund Models Brochure as of May 21, 2021 Edward Jones 12555 Manchester Road St. Louis, MO 63131 800-803-3333 edwardjones.com Item 1: Cover Page This wrap fee program brochure provides information about the qualifications and business practices of Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. ("Edward Jones," "we" or "us

Agreement"), the Edward Jones Guided Solutions Flex Account Brochure (the "Brochure"), and the Edward Jones Margin Disclosure Statement and the Statement of Credit Terms (the "Margin Disclosure"). 1. Edward Jones Guided Solutions Edward Jones offers client-directed investment advisory services to clients through Guided Solutions.

Smart Manufacturing Trista Chen, Chief Scientist of Machine Learning of Inventec Wei-Chao Chen, Co-founder of Skywatch & Head of Inventec AI Center {chen.trista, chen.wei-c

A Supplication to the Lamas of the Mahamudra Lineage. DRO CHEN NO Marpa, (1012-1097), please know. MILA SHEHPA DORJE CHEN NO Laughing Vajra, Milarepa, (1052-1135), please know. DAGPO DA-Ö SHUNNU CHEN NO Youthful Moonlight, Gampopa, (1079-1153), please know. PALDEN DUSUM CHENPA CHEN NO Glo

Argon Chen Vic Chen Chris Hsu Graduate Institute of Industrial Engineering National Taiwan University 2 Effects of Rounded Corners on E-Tests rounded corner OPC Intended Polygon Design Resulting Print H1 E1 W Region of rounding effect W 0.1 0.3 E1 0.05 0.15 H1 0 0.4 Upper bound Design Lower Factors

Robert Blocker Eric Braverman CAI Hongbin CAO Wenlian Shirley Chen CHEN Zhiwu CHEN Zongsheng . Yale School of Management SafelyStay US Department of State Yale University . Robert B. Simonds Edward A. Snyder Lixin Song K. Sudhir SUN Zhenyu Chris Tam Eddie Tam ChinHwee Tan