Tesla Asks Colorado Court to Dismiss Autopilot Lawsuit, Citing Drunk Driving and Inactive FSD

Tesla has asked a Colorado federal court to dismiss a wrongful-death lawsuit, petitioning for the case to be thrown out. The company argues the driver was highly intoxicated and that vehicle logs show Full Self-Driving and Autopilot were not enabled when the crash occurred.

The motion focuses on how courts evaluate Autopilot liability and reflects Tesla’s reliance on telemetry to counter allegations of defective software.

The Background of the Crash

The case arises from a fatal crash in May 2022 involving 33-year-old Hans Von Ohain, who at the time worked as a recruiter for Tesla. He was driving a Model 3 on Upper Bear Creek Road in Colorado with a friend after a day of golfing.

Reports state the car left the pavement, hit a tree, and caught fire. The passenger escaped with severe injuries, while Von Ohain died in the blaze. An autopsy later found his blood alcohol content was three times the legal limit at the time of the crash.

Despite that level of intoxication, Von Ohain’s widow filed suit against Tesla in May 2024, alleging Autopilot was engaged and suddenly steered the vehicle off the road. The complaint also contends that Tesla’s marketing of autonomous features gave Von Ohain a false sense of security that the car could get him home despite his inebriation.

Tesla's Defense: The Data Speaks

This week, Tesla moved to dismiss the case, basing its position on two central arguments that challenge the plaintiff’s claims.

First, the company cites newly surfaced vehicle data showing Autopilot was not active when the crash happened. Although the surviving passenger previously said the system was in use, Tesla maintains the telemetry proves otherwise.

Because both FSD and AP were inactive, Tesla argues the lawsuit’s core theory that a defect in the autonomy suite caused the death does not hold.

Second, Tesla highlights Von Ohain’s blood alcohol level. By driving at three times the legal limit, the company argues his severe impairment was the sole proximate cause of the loss of control, absolving Tesla of liability for the outcome.

Setting a Legal Precedent

The motion is a pivotal moment in Tesla’s broader litigation over its driver-assistance software.

Plaintiffs often attribute crashes to Autopilot, but Tesla’s vehicles log detailed data, including exactly when features are engaged, steering inputs, and braking pressure.

If the Colorado federal court grants dismissal, it would reinforce a growing legal precedent: vehicle internal data can definitively show whether Autopilot was active, and severe driver impairment remains a valid, case-closing defense.