Tesla Autopilot Defect Lawsuit Alleges Model X Suddenly Accelerated With Father, Child Inside

Lawsuit claims Tesla knew the technology was unreasonably dangerous but overstated its capabilities and continued selling vehicles without adequate warnings or safeguards.

A Washington man has filed a lawsuit alleging a defect in Tesla’s Autopilot system caused a crash that injured him and his teenage daughter.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Linh Nguyen and Nga Thi Bich Vo, parents of Chi Nguyen, in the King County Superior Court of Washington on June 23, naming Tesla Inc. as the defendant. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on September 23.

Nguyen maintains Tesla’s Autopilot system acted without command, failed to respond appropriately to traffic conditions and interfered with his ability to regain control of the vehicle.

Tesla Defect Injuries

Tesla has faced a number of lawsuits alleging vehicle defects caused serious injuries and deaths, including claims involving its Autopilot technology and electronic door systems.

In one 2024 lawsuit, the family of a California man alleged his Tesla failed to stop while traveling at more than 70 mph with Autopilot engaged, causing the vehicle to crash into the back of a firetruck. The complaint also claimed that Tesla misrepresented the safety of its self-driving features.

Another lawsuit alleged a defective Tesla Autopilot system caused a crash that killed a woman and seriously injured her boyfriend. A jury later awarded more than $329 million in damages to the surviving plaintiff and the woman’s family after finding Tesla partially responsible for the accident.

Tesla has also faced claims that its electronic door systems are faulty and may prevent occupants from escaping after a crash. In one case, a New York woman was allegedly trapped inside her Tesla after a collision caused the lithium-ion battery to catch fire and the electronic doors stopped working.

Tesla Autopilot Defect Allegations

According to the new complaint, Nguyen was driving his 2023 Tesla Model X on June 29, 2023, and returning home with his 14-year-old daughter, Chi. He says that he brought the Tesla to a stop at a red light when the vehicle accelerated with extreme force on its own. It allegedly surged forward through the light and into the intersection at high speed. Nguyen claims he was unable to stop or control the vehicle until it struck a curb and the tires burst.

The lawsuit indicates Nguyen and his daughter suffered shock and distress, with Nguyen undergoing injuries to his left side from head to toe, including to his neck, back, shoulder and knees. His daughter also suffered bodily injuries and severe emotional distress.

Both family members underwent medical treatment and therapy. However, Chi allegedly remains distressed and is receiving ongoing care at a mental health treatment facility. Nguyen indicates that Tesla paid to repair the vehicle, but the car lost value and the insurance premium increased because of the accident.

The complaint alleges the Tesla’s Autopilot failed to keep Nguyen and his daughter safe, acted without command, and failed to respond to traffic conditions, including the red light and oncoming traffic. Furthermore, it prevented Nguyen from braking and steering the vehicle to safety.

Nguyen claims the Autopilot technology was overpromised by Tesla, arguing that the company hid defects and encouraged consumers to rely on unsafe and unproven technology while operating their vehicles on public roads.

“Despite having knowledge of the unreasonably dangerous nature of the Autopilot technology responsible, in part, for the injuries to Mr. Nguyen and his minor child, Defendant Tesla advertised the Autopilot technology in a way that greatly overestimated its capabilities and hid its deficiencies.”

— Linh Nguyen et al. v. Tesla Inc. et al.

The lawsuit raises allegations of product defect, defective design, defective manufacturing, failure to warn, breach of express and/or implied warranties, violation of Washington State’s consumer expectation test, violation of Washington State’s risk-utility test, negligent misrepresentation and corporate negligence. It seeks general, special, economic and punitive damages.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.