A lawsuit filed in federal court alleges design defects in a Tesla Model 3 caused the death of a Tacoma woman and severe injuries to her husband in 2023 by trapping the couple inside a crashed, burning vehicle that suddenly accelerated out of control before striking a utility pole and bursting into flames.
Jeffery Dennis and an attorney representing the estate of his late wife, Wendy Dennis, filed the lawsuit Friday in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington, seeking damages for wrongful death, personal injuries, and lost wages resulting from the 7 January 2023 crash.
Jeffery Dennis was driving the Tesla Model 3 on what court documents describe as “a normal Saturday afternoon of shopping and errands” in Tacoma with Wendy seated in the passenger seat when the vehicle allegedly malfunctioned catastrophically.
The car “suddenly and rapidly accelerated out of control” for at least five seconds before crashing into a utility pole at the corner of South 56th and South Washington streets, according to the complaint. The lawsuit alleges the vehicle’s Automatic Emergency Braking system, designed to engage when sensors detect a frontal collision is “unavoidable,” failed to activate despite the imminent impact, a malfunction the plaintiffs characterise as negligent and defective design.
The Tesla burst into flames immediately after striking the utility pole, creating an urgent rescue situation as the fire rapidly intensified. Witnesses who saw the crash attempted to open the car doors to rescue the trapped couple, but the design of the vehicle prevents people from opening doors from outside when the battery is not functioning, according to the lawsuit’s allegations. Multiple witnesses attempted to break the car’s windows using a baseball bat in desperate efforts to reach the occupants, but “the increasingly intense fire forced them to distance themselves,” the complaint states, as the heat and flames became too dangerous for rescuers to approach.
First responders eventually extracted the couple from the burning vehicle, but Wendy Dennis died at the scene from injuries sustained in the crash and fire, whilst Jeffery Dennis survived with severe burns to his legs requiring extensive medical treatment.
The lawsuit alleges Tesla’s decision to design the Automatic Emergency Braking system in a manner that prevented it from activating under these circumstances “constituted negligence and gross negligence,” arguing the company should have foreseen scenarios where the system would fail to protect occupants from preventable collisions.
The complaint also alleges Tesla “used a highly explosive battery chemistry when there were other available, feasible, and less expensive battery chemistries” that would have been safer, and that the battery design caused a “raging fire” when the vehicle collided with the utility pole. This claim suggests the company prioritised performance or cost considerations over safety when selecting lithium-ion battery chemistry.
“Tesla vehicles continue to explode at a much higher rate than any other electric vehicle on the market,” the complaint asserts, positioning the incident within a broader pattern of Tesla fires rather than characterising it as an isolated occurrence.
The complaint particularly emphasises what it characterises as a “unique and defective door handle design” that prevented rescuers from removing the couple from the burning car quickly enough to save Wendy Dennis’s life. Tesla’s electric door handles rely on battery power to operate, but the batteries are designed to automatically shut off if the vehicle experiences a collision, a safety feature intended to prevent electrical fires that has the unintended consequence of disabling outer door handles precisely when occupants most need to escape.
Interior door handles incorporate a manual release mechanism that allows occupants to open doors without power, but “if occupants haven’t been informed about where to find and operate the manual release mechanism, they become trapped in the vehicle,” the complaint states, arguing the design creates a deadly trap for uninformed occupants and makes rescue by bystanders impossible.
“The foreseeable risk of serious injury or death resulting from this defect was obvious and should have been readily apparent to any reasonably competent design engineer,” the complaint asserts, suggesting Tesla knowingly deployed a dangerous design despite awareness of its potentially fatal consequences.
The lawsuit alleges Tesla was aware of these defects but continued marketing and selling vehicles without correcting the problems or adequately warning consumers. It cites numerous previous incidents of “sudden uncommanded acceleration” in Tesla vehicles documented in safety databases and media reports, and references accounts from first responders who reported being unable to save occupants because door mechanisms would not function after crashes.
“Tesla must be held responsible for the damage caused and created by its unsafe vehicle,” the complaint states, framing the lawsuit as seeking accountability for corporate decisions that plaintiffs argue prioritised profits over safety.
Attorneys representing the couple did not immediately respond to requests for comment about the lawsuit or the specific allegations against Tesla.
Tesla also did not immediately respond to requests for comment, maintaining the company’s pattern of rarely engaging with media inquiries about crashes, lawsuits, or safety concerns.
The plaintiffs seek punitive damages under California law, where the vehicle was designed and manufactured at Tesla facilities, arguing the company’s conduct warrants punishment beyond mere compensation for losses. They seek damages for Jeffery Dennis’s physical injuries including severe leg burns, medical expenses, pain and suffering, and lost wages, as well as damages for Wendy Dennis’s wrongful death including loss of companionship and funeral expenses.
