Would Recent Multi-million Dollar Verdict Against Tesla Happen in Nevada?

Recently, news broke that Tesla was held liable for a $243,000,000 verdict for a product’s liability action when one of its cars was involved in a collision when the driver a George McGee, with Autopilot engaged, ran a stop sign and a flashing red light at a T-intersection on Card Sound Road, near Key Largo, Florida. The vehicle was traveling over 60 mph when it struck a parked Chevrolet Tahoe, which in turn struck Naibel Benavides Leon (age 22), killing her, and critically injuring her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo; McGee admitted he was distracted by a dropped cellphone, stating he bent down to retrieve it, causing the crash. It occurred on April 25, 2019, in a Tesla Model S equipped with “autopilot”—a modern system designed to drive for the driver, but with driver supervision to avoid exactly what happened (*note accident was in 2019, not 2025).

The plaintiffs argued Tesla’s Autopilot system failed to detect stationary objects and traffic signals, and that the company overstated its capabilities, misleading consumers into thinking it could operate with less oversight Tesla’s defense emphasized that driver negligence was the primary cause, pointing to McGee’s inattention and the fact that pressing the accelerator overrides Autopilot’s braking functions. In August 2025, a Miami federal jury held Tesla partially liable, finding McGee 67% at fault and Tesla 33% at fault The jury awarded a total of approximately $242.6 million: $42.6 million in compensatory damages (Tesla’s 33% share of $129M), $200 million in punitive damages.

Why Verdict would also stand in Nevada: Nevada subscribes to a 51% comparative negligence doctrine. Thus, a verdict that found the defendant driver 67% comparatively negligent such as here would not stand if the heirs of George McGee were the only “Plaintiffs”. This is in contrast to Florida, which has pure comparative negligence, (or another way of saying that you can collect your percentage no matter how much the % of fault i.e. get 33% of award despite being over 51% at fault.) But, the defendants were innocent bystanders who got hit by Mr. McGee, and thus they had no comparative fault, so the verdict would stand, and be limited to the joint/several liability found by the jury—here 33%. And, the punitive damages award would also stand. NRS 42.005(2)(b) states that, unlike ordinary negligence claims, punitive damages in product’s liability actions are not capped at a 3 to 1 ratio, and thus the full award of punitive damages would be allowed.

But, before that can be certainly stated, it must be Constitutionally analyzed. The ratio awarded was 4.7 times the compensatory award. Given case was in Federal Court, and the case would be filed in Nevada, (using diversity jurisdiction where plaintiffs live in Different states and controversy amount exceeds $75,000), Nevada substantive law would apply. Because Nevada substantive law applies, there is no cap in Nevada for the punitive awarded– it would also stand. The 4.7 times may be argued excessive, but the US Supreme Court has also ruled that 9 to 1 awards are suspect. See State Farm vs. Campbell 538 U.S. 408 (2003). So it’s very likely the Nevada Supreme Court would allow the award given the reasonable relationship between the compensatory and the punitives.