Tesla Faces $10.35 Million Lawsuit Over Model Y ‘Insane’ Mode Test Drive Crash

A Virginia woman is seeking more than $10 million from Tesla after alleging she was sent on her first electric vehicle test drive alone in a Model Y that had been set to its high-performance “Insane” acceleration mode without her knowledge.

Alemzewd Lawgalet sued Tesla Inc. and two employees over the Sept. 21, 2024 crash in Arlington, Virginia. She claims the company failed to properly prepare her to drive the vehicle after she told employees that she had never driven an electric car and asked for a salesperson to accompany her.

According to the complaint, the employees declined that request and told Lawgalet the Model Y operated the same as a gas-powered vehicle. She alleges no one explained the car’s regenerative braking system or told her about its acceleration setting before she left for the test drive.

Once on Interstate 395, Lawgalet says she became concerned when the Model Y slowed more sharply than she expected after she removed her foot from the accelerator. Regenerative braking allows an electric vehicle to slow when the driver eases off the accelerator while returning some of that energy to the battery. Tesla explains the feature in its Model Y owner’s manual.

Believing something might be wrong with the vehicle, Lawgalet headed back toward the dealership. After exiting the highway and stopping at a red light near the Pentagon, she says she pressed the accelerator when the light changed, and the Model Y surged forward with far more force than she expected.

The vehicle left the roadway and crashed into a salon in Arlington. Lawgalet was taken to a hospital with serious injuries, according to emergency officials at the time. Her lawsuit alleges she continues to suffer from injuries caused by the collision.

Central to her claim is the allegation that the Model Y had been left in Insane mode before the test drive. Tesla describes the setting as one that makes the vehicle’s maximum available acceleration immediately accessible. Drivers select acceleration modes through the touchscreen controls inside the vehicle.

Rather than claiming that the Model Y mechanically malfunctioned, Lawgalet argues that Tesla employees created an unsafe situation by giving her the vehicle without adequate instruction or warning. The lawsuit alleges their handling of the test drive amounted to negligence.

Negligence generally means failing to use the level of care a reasonable person or business would use under similar circumstances. Businesses can face negligence claims when their own actions, or those of their employees, allegedly create a foreseeable risk of injury. The person bringing the claim must still show that the alleged failure to use reasonable care contributed to the harm that followed.

Tesla has denied responsibility and argues that Lawgalet failed to exercise reasonable care herself. That defense carries particular importance under Virginia law because the state follows a contributory negligence rule.

Under that rule, a person whose own negligence contributed to an accident can generally be barred from recovering damages on an ordinary negligence claim. Virginia differs from states that allow damages to be divided according to each side’s percentage of fault. Tesla’s response therefore places Lawgalet’s conduct during the test drive alongside the company’s alleged conduct before she was given the vehicle.

The complaint also accuses Tesla and the two employees of willful and wanton conduct. Virginia law uses that standard for behavior that goes beyond ordinary carelessness and shows a conscious disregard for another person’s safety or reckless indifference to the likely consequences.

That allegation is tied to Lawgalet’s request for punitive damages, which are intended to punish particularly serious misconduct rather than compensate someone for a specific loss. She is seeking $10 million in compensatory damages and another $350,000 in punitive damages. Virginia law caps punitive damages in civil cases at $350,000.

Tesla removed the lawsuit from Arlington County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in July. The company has denied liability, and the case remains pending in federal court.