OOF-AII-479643
Tesla Model S with Autopilot Reportedly Engaged Struck Parked SUV in Key Largo, Killing One Person and Seriously Injuring Another Standing Nearby
On April 25, 2019, George McGee's Tesla Model S, with Autopilot reportedly engaged, drove through a Key Largo intersection and struck a parked Chevrolet Tahoe, which then hit two people standing beside it: Naibel Benavides Leon, who was killed, and Dillon Angulo, who was seriously injured. McGee admitted distraction. In 2025, a federal jury found Tesla 33% responsible on defective-design and failure-to-warn claims. Tesla disputed liability and said it would appeal.
- Event date
- 2019-04-25
- Country
- Location not specified
- Severity
- Moderate
- Evidence state
- Single-source
Assessment status
Generated from available public incident evidence using OOF® governance methodology. It is not an official investigation, legal determination, regulatory finding, certification, or OOF® Approved Assessment.
View source record from AI Incident Database (Responsible AI Collaborative)
Assessment confidence dimensions
- Source corroboration
- Single-source
- Extraction completeness
- Moderate
- Methodological assignment confidence
- Moderate
Measures source-group corroboration only; it does not establish factual truth.
Measures populated source fields after deterministic normalization; it does not measure correctness.
Measures automated assignment support; substantive correctness requires authorized human review.
Known facts from the incident record
- The incident record identifies the event date as 2019-04-25.
Reported claims
- On April 25, 2019, George McGee's Tesla Model S, with Autopilot reportedly engaged, drove through a Key Largo intersection and struck a parked Chevrolet Tahoe, which then hit two people standing beside it: Naibel Benavides Leon, who was killed, and Dillon Angulo, who was seriously injured. McGee admitted distraction. In 2025, a federal jury found Tesla 33% responsible on defective-design and failure-to-warn claims. Tesla disputed liability and said it would appeal.
Material unknowns
- Independent corroboration is not established in the available incident record.
Primary governance problem
The incident appears to expose a governance problem involving liability, responsibility. Available reporting supports preliminary methodological interpretation, not a finding of fault or non-compliance.
Architecture intelligence
LIGA™ — Liability Governance Architecture
Primary architecture
The reported liability, responsibility concern falls within the governed questions represented by LIGA™ — Liability Governance Architecture.
Governance focus: On what governed basis can Liability potentially exist?
Canonical methodology (ParentStandard):
AGA™ — Accountability Governance Architecture
Contributing architecture
The reported accountability, responsibility concern falls within the governed questions represented by AGA™ — Accountability Governance Architecture.
Governance focus: How should accountability, responsibility be governed in the conditions described by the available incident evidence?
Canonical methodology (ParentStandard):
CLIA® — Cognitive Governance Intelligence Architecture
Contributing architecture
The reported accountability, responsibility concern falls within the governed questions represented by CLIA® — Cognitive Governance Intelligence Architecture.
Governance focus: How should accountability, responsibility be governed in the conditions described by the available incident evidence?
Deeper methodology is withheld because the available evidence does not justify a Parent Standard or Core Module.
Preliminary governance questions
- On what governed basis can Liability potentially exist?
- How should accountability, responsibility be governed in the conditions described by the available incident evidence?
- What operational authority and controls applied to George Mcgee, Tesla Drivers, Drivers, Road Users at the relevant time?
- What evidence would establish how Tesla Autopilot, Automated Driving Systems produced or enabled the reported outcome?
- What additional independent evidence is required to resolve the material evidence gaps?
Evidence gaps and limitations
- Only one independent source group is represented; corroboration is not established.
- Country could not be resolved from the available evidence.
- AI technology is not specified in the source record.
- industry is not specified in the source record.
- AI system type is not specified in the source record.