A Texas woman is suing Tesla for over $1 million after her Cybertruck, running on Autopilot, attempted to drive straight off a Houston overpass and crashed into a concrete barrier. The lawsuit includes an unusually pointed allegation: that Tesla was negligent in hiring and retaining Elon Musk as CEO.
The case, filed in Harris County District Court, adds to what has become an avalanche of legal consequences tied to Tesla’s “self-driving” claims, and it comes just weeks after a federal judge upheld a historic $243 million verdict against the automaker in a separate Autopilot crash case.
The crash
According to the court filing reviewed by Electrek, plaintiff Justine Saint Amour purchased a used Cybertruck with Tesla’s “Full Self-Driving” (FSD) package from a Florida dealership in February 2025.
On August 18, 2025, Saint Amour was driving the Cybertruck on the 69 Eastex Freeway in Houston with FSD engaged. As the vehicle approached a Y-shaped overpass split near 256 Eastex Park and Ride, the Cybertruck should have followed the curve to the right. Instead, according to the petition, the vehicle attempted to drive straight ahead, directly into a concrete barrier at the edge of the overpass, with the freeway below.
Saint Amour disengaged the driver assist system and grabbed the wheel, but it was too late to avoid the collision.
The allegations against Musk
While negligence and product liability claims are standard fare in Tesla Autopilot lawsuits, this case goes further than most. Among the 16 specific allegations of negligent conduct, the petition accuses Tesla of “negligently hiring and negligently retaining Elon Musk as CEO, and allowing him to participate in product design decisions.”
The filing also alleges Tesla was negligent in “allowing Elon Musk to override the concerns of engineers at Tesla.” Specifically, the complaint claims that Tesla engineers recommended incorporating radar and LiDAR sensors, the laser-based system used by competitors like Waymo, into its vehicles to improve the safety of its driver-assistance system. Musk rejected the recommendation in favor of relying solely on cameras, a decision that has defined and limited Tesla’s approach to autonomy for years.
The petition describes Musk as “an aggressive and irresponsible salesman, who has a long history of making dangerous design choices, and over-promising the features of his products.”
Design defect and misleading marketing claims
Beyond negligence, the lawsuit brings strict liability claims for design defects and marketing defects. The complaint alleges the Cybertruck and its FSD features were “defective and unreasonably dangerous” due to the lack of a proper driver monitoring system, the absence of LiDAR, ineffective automatic emergency braking (AEB), and misleading marketing of the system as “self-driving.”
The filing references the SAE’s five levels of driving automation, noting that Tesla’s system operates at Level 2, requiring constant driver supervision, while Mercedes-Benz offers a certified Level 3 system that actually informs drivers when they must take over. Tesla markets its system as “Full Self-Driving,” a name the plaintiff argues creates a false and dangerous impression.
This tracks with what a California judge ruled in December 2025, that Tesla’s FSD marketing is “actually, unambiguously false and counterfactual.”
The lawsuit also accuses Tesla of using non-disclosure agreements to prevent drivers from sharing information about FSD’s performance, referencing NHTSA’s concern that such practices adversely impact its ability to investigate safety issues.
A growing legal wave
The case arrives at a particularly difficult time for Tesla’s “self-driving” program. NHTSA is investigating 2.88 million Tesla vehicles equipped with FSD after connecting 58 incidents to the system, including crashes where FSD directed vehicles into opposing lanes and through turn-only intersections. Tesla has struggled to comply with the investigation, requesting multiple deadline extensions to deliver crash data.
Meanwhile, Tesla’s Robotaxi program in Austin has produced crashes at roughly four times the human rate, and viral videos continue to surface showing FSD driving through railroad crossing barriers and attempting to steer into lakes.
The plaintiff seeks monetary damages exceeding $1 million, plus exemplary (punitive) damages under Texas law. The case is being handled by Hilliard Law, a Corpus Christi-based firm.
Electrek’s Take
The “negligent retention of Elon Musk” allegation is legally unusual, but it gets at something we’ve been reporting on for years: Musk’s personal decision-making has directly shaped the technical limitations of Tesla’s driver-assistance system and has created significant liability for Tesla.
His rejection of LiDAR, his repeated false promises about achieving full autonomy “by next year,” and his insistence on marketing a Level 2 system as “Full Self-Driving” are all well-documented.
This lawsuit is one more in a growing pile, and the legal landscape has shifted dramatically against Tesla over the past year. The $243 million verdict, the California false advertising ruling, the NHTSA investigations, the pattern is clear. Tesla built its self-driving narrative on marketing hype that its technology couldn’t back up, and the consequences are now arriving in courtrooms across the country.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Comments