— A Tesla Model X lawsuit dismissal has been upheld by an appeals court after an owner claimed the SUV tried to kill her and her unborn child.
The Tesla Model X Incident
California plaintiff Mallory Harcourt purchased a 2018 Tesla Model X in December 2018 when she was eight months pregnant.
Days later she parked the Tesla in her driveway and took her two-year-old son (B.H.) out of the car seat, but she left her purse and key fob in the Model X.
The plaintiff realized she didn't have her house key and that her son's diaper needed to be changed. She opened the driver-side rear door to get the diaper bag and opened the driver's door to press the garage door opener.
With the key fob in the vehicle and both doors open, she and her son walked toward the garage, but as she was setting up the changing pad she saw her son wasn't with her. She also saw the Model X was moving toward her, then hitting her in the bottom of her stomach, lifting her up and pinning her against the garage wall.
Seriously injured, she saw her son pop up inside the Model X.
The pregnant Harcourt suffered fractures to her leg and pelvis, a traumatic wound to her leg and soft tissue damage. Her labor was induced about a week later and she gave birth to her uninjured daughter.
The Tesla Model X Lawsuit
Harcourt sued Tesla in May 2019 claiming a design defect allowed her child to start the Model X. According to her lawsuit, the Model X suffered an "un-commanded acceleration event," and Tesla's "conduct was despicable, and so contemptible that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people."
“My toddler learned how to start and operate the Tesla faster than an adult can open a childproof bottle. We could have died, the public needs to know.” — Mallory Harcourt
The court noted how the Tesla Model X is unlike other vehicle in many ways. The SUV driver’s door would open if a user approached with the key fob, and once the key fob was inside the vehicle would turn on.
If the key fob was in the Model X a driver could start it by pressing the brake pedal and shifting the SUV into gear. The subject gear shifter was similar in size and location to a windshield wiper which a driver would click up or down to shift the vehicle into REVERSE or DRIVE.
Harcourt did not read the owner's manual before the accident and didn't know there was a PIN-to-Drive feature which would require an operator to enter a 4-digit personal identification number before driving the vehicle. However, she testified she would have activated it if she would have learned about the SUV.
Additionally, the plaintiff testified she also didn't know about the “obstacle aware acceleration” feature which activated during the incident to slow the vehicle down. She also didn't know about the Model X “brake override system” which reduced torque on the engine when the accelerator pedal and brake pedal were applied at the same time.
And Harcourt also did not know about Tesla's “auto shift to park” feature which was activated in this incident.
Tesla vehicles record data, lots of it, and Tesla provided data for the Model X incident.
B.H. climbed into the vehicle through the open door and pressed the brake pedal which caused the driver’s side door to close. B.H. then shifted into DRIVE by simultaneously pressing the brake pedal and moving the gear selector indicator on the side of the steering wheel column. He then released the brake pedal and pressed the accelerator pedal.
The Model X began moving forward and increasing speed to three miles per hour, but slowed to nearly a stop before increasing speed again to 8.5 miles per hour before again slowing. The data show the Model X was traveling six to seven miles per hour when it impacted Harcourt. Three seconds after the impact, the car automatically shifted into PARK.
About a minute later B.H. again pushed the accelerator pedal, but because of Tesla's safety feature the SUV remained in PARK and did not move further.
Harcourt v. Tesla Lawsuit Dismissed
The trial court dismissed the lawsuit, but not by finding the Model X wasn't defective. In fact, the judge said the plaintiff “may be right” that the Model X was defective.
The entire lawsuit ended because the plaintiff decided to rely solely on the "consumer expectations test" to prove the alleged defects before trial.
The plaintiff's argument was her Tesla Model X injured her when it “did not perform as an ordinary consumer would have expected it to perform when used or misused in a reasonably foreseeable way.” She also made a request to limit evidence concerning defects to that relevant to the consumer expectations test.
At trial, Harcourt testified she left her key fob in the car, but it did not occur to her that it would be dangerous to do so or that it would be dangerous to leave the door open with B.H. around.
However, it had already been established she hadn't learned about the Model X or its features in the few days since she purchased it.
Harcourt explained she did not believe her son could start and operate the Model X “because normally you would have to get in the car, put your foot on the brakes, start the car, press the button. There is some type of thing [such as pressing a button or inserting a key into the ignition] before you are able to put it into gear . . . .”
However, the plaintiff also admitted B.H. sat in the front passenger seat of a Tesla when the family was at the showroom purchasing the Model X. And she also said for Christmas he "received a ride-in Audi toy that a child could drive while a parent walked alongside, which included an on/off switch, a steering wheel, and a single pedal to accelerate."
After Harcourt rested her case, Tesla filed a motion for nonsuit.
Tesla argued Harcourt had not presented evidence showing the consumer expectations test applies to this case.
Tesla told the trial court judge:
“The ordinary consumer has no idea how the vehicle should have performed once B.H. climbed into it, much less how safe the vehicle could have been made in the context of this case.”
The trial court granted Tesla's nonsuit motion because Harcourt had not shown that "the consumer expectations test—which is reserved for cases where ordinary users have 'commonly accepted minimum safety assumptions' about a product—applies in this case."
In May 2024, the trial court entered a judgment granting Tesla's nonsuit motion and dismissed the Model X lawsuit. Two months later the plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial which was dismissed by the trial court judge. But Harcourt also filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District regarding the nonsuit ruling and judgment.
The plaintiff argued the consumer expectations test applies to her case and the trial court was wrong by granting Tesla's nonsuit motion. The appeals court reviewed the nonsuit ruling de novo, meaning with fresh eyes on the case from its beginning.
According to the Sixth Appellate District judges, "we conclude that the consumer expectations test does not apply to the circumstances of this case."
You can read more about the original lawsuit and additional details about the crash data here.
The Tesla Model X lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda - Harcourt v. Tesla, Inc.
The plaintiff is represented by the Gokal Law Group.