— A Florida appeals court has brought an end to a Tesla lawsuit that alleges Barrett Riley, 18, would have survived a crash if his Model S high voltage battery would have been better protected from fires.
The Tesla lithium-ion battery contains thousands of cells.
The Barrett Riley Tesla Crash
Prior to the fatal crash, Barrett received a speeding ticket for driving 112 mph in a 50 mph zone in March 2018, and another time his parents caught him driving nearly 100 mph. In addition, he would take the Tesla to empty parking lots to go "drifting," described as a "controlled skid sideways through a turn.”
Instead of taking the Tesla from him, his parents had a Tesla service center activate a speed limiter which prevented the Model S from exceeding 85 mph. But a few weeks later Barrett took the car back and asked for the speed limiter to be removed, which is what happened.
The May 2018 crash occurred as Barrett Riley was driving 116 mph in a 30 mph zone, with an advised 25 mph speed limit around the corner.
Even though a bright yellow flashing sign warned drivers about the 25 mph curve, Barrett tried to pass another car and entered the curve doing 116 mph.
Barrett lost control and swerved into the right lane, struck and mounted the curb, hit a concrete wall on the passenger side door, ricocheted off another concrete wall, spun around completely and went back across five lanes of traffic.
The Tesla then hit a metal light pole which was split in half by the crash, but fortunately no other vehicles were hit. Witnesses said there were flames coming from the Model S after it hit the second concrete wall.
The crash killed Barrett Riley and his 18-year-old front seat passenger Edgar Monserratt Martinez. An 18-year-old occupant in the Tesla back seat was ejected and survived the accident.
Barrett's father James Riley sued Tesla alleging Model S defects caused his son's death.
The Barrett Riley Tesla Model S Crash Lawsuit
Barrett's father, James Riley, sued Tesla by alleging the Tesla Model S was defectively designed because the cell walls of the high voltage battery were not thick enough to stop the Model S from catching fire if there was a crash. The lawsuit also alleges the pack that held the battery lacked fire retardant "intumescent" material to stop a fire from spreading.
The district court judge refused to dismiss the Tesla crash lawsuit and allowed the case to proceed to trial.
However, before the trial, the district court judge excluded the battery expert's opinion about the alleged battery cell wall thickness defect. The judge also dismissed the product liability claims based on the alleged lack of intumescent material because James Riley did not present any evidence that the alleged battery defect caused Barrett’s death.
Without the expert’s opinion, the case went to trial based on a negligence claim because Barrett wanted the speed limiter removed and Tesla obliged. The jury awarded his father $10.5 million but found Tesla only 1% at fault.
Specifically, the Florida jury found Tesla 1% negligent, Barrett Riley 90% negligent, and his father 9% negligent.
That should have been the end of it, but Barrett's father appealed the district court order dismissing the product liability claims and the opinion of his battery expert.
Barrett Riley / Tesla Crash Lawsuit Appeal
According to the ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the district court judge was not wrong to strike the expert opinion before the Tesla trial, including about the alleged battery cell wall thickness defect.
Additionally, the lower court judge was not wrong to dismiss the product liability claims based on the alleged lack of battery fire retardant material.
The appeals court found the lack of intumescent material could not have killed Barrett by itself because intumescent material is only a fire retardant. In other words, it doesn't spark a fire because it's used to stop the spread of a fire once something else sparked the fire.
According to the appeals court, the crushed battery and cells caused the fire, but the battery and cells were crushed because Barrett crashed at an extreme high speed.
"Because the lack of intumescent material is a dependent cause, rather than a concurring one under Florida law, the but-for test applies. And James’s products liability claims based on the lack of intumescent material fail under this test because, even with Dr. White’s opinion, there was no evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that Barrett would have survived but for the lack of intumescent material in his Tesla’s battery pack." — Eleventh Circuit
The Barrett Riley Tesla crash lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida: James Riley v. Tesla, Inc.
The plaintiff is represented by Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger, and Colson Hicks Eidson.