Page 1
Case 3:25-cv-06052
Document 1
Filed 11/21/25
Page 1 of 29
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
JEFFERY L. DENNIS, individually, and Renee Canavan as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Wendy M.
Dennis,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TELSA, INC.,
Defendant.
CASE NO:
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs, Jeffery L. Dennis, individually, and Renee Canavan as representative of
the estate of Wendy M. Dennis, complain of and allege the following causes of action against Defendant Tesla, Inc., (hereinafter called “Tesla”), as follows:
I. OVERVIEW
1. This case arises from design defects in a Tesla Model 3 that caused a catastrophic crash
killing Wendy Dennis and severely injured her husband, Jeff Dennis. Not only did
defects in the Tesla vehicle cause the tragic crash, but other defects in the Tesla caused
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL.
RIVERA LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1800 Cooper Point RD SW #14, Olympia WA 98502 Tel: (360) 705-8200
Page 1
celia@riveralawoffices.com
Page 2
Case 3:25-cv-06052
Document 1
Filed 11/21/25
Page 2 of 29
an explosive fire and prevented rescuers from removing Jeff and Wendy in time to
prevent some of their horrendous harm.
2. Plaintiffs allege that the Tesla Model 3 had a defect that caused it to suddenly, and without warning or command from the driver, accelerate out of control. Although the driver skillfully avoided other vehicles, the Tesla eventually crashed into a utility pole.
3. Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that Tesla’s decision to prevent its Automatic Emergency
Braking (AEB) system from activating under these circumstances constituted
negligence and gross negligence.
4. Plaintiffs further allege that because of defective batteries and battery pack design, the Tesla exploded into a raging fire upon impact with the pole. The battery chemistry and design unnecessarily increased the risk of this kind of catastrophic fire.
5. Plaintiffs also allege Tesla’s unique and defective door handle design, which causes the
door handles to become inoperable after a crash, prevented rescuers from removing Jeff
and Wendy in time to prevent unnecessary further injuries.
6. Well before this tragedy, Defendant Tesla had received repeated notice that its vehicles were prone to Sudden Uncommanded Acceleration [SUA], explosive fires, whether triggered by a crash or occurring spontaneously, and that such fires were difficult and time-consuming to extinguish. Tesla also knew that its decision to prevent its AEB system from activating would allow otherwise preventable collisions to kill and maim
people. Tesla knew that its reliance on electronic door systems created a serious risk of COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL.
RIVERA LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1800 Cooper Point RD SW #14, Olympia WA 98502 Tel: (360) 705-8200
Page 2
celia@riveralawoffices.com
Page 3
Case 3:25-cv-06052
Document 1
Filed 11/21/25
Page 3 of 29
occupant entrapment after crashes. Owners, rescuers, and regulators had documented
prior incidents where Tesla occupants survived crash forces but were unable to escape
when power failed and fire ensued. Despite these warnings, Defendant Tesla continued to market and sell vehicles—including the subject vehicle—that predictably trapped survivors in foreseeable emergencies.
II. FACTS
7. On January 7, 2023, Plaintiff Jeffery L. Dennis was driving the 2018 Tesla Model 3,
VIN 5YJ3E1EA9JF023043 (hereinafter “subject vehicle”), owned by Dennis and his
spouse, Wendy M. Dennis, who was riding in the front passenger seat. The Dennis’s
were out for a normal Saturday afternoon of shopping and errands.
8. The Dennises were traveling westbound on South 56th Street, toward the intersection with South Washington Street, in Tacoma, Washington, when their Tesla Model 3
suddenly and rapidly accelerated out of control, continuing to accelerate faster and
faster for at least 5 seconds before crashing into a utility pole on the northwest corner
of South 56th and South Washington streets shortly after 1:00 PM.
9. Video footage from a nearby business shows the Dennis’ Model 3 rapidly accelerating
and swerving to avoid hitting other vehicles as it sped out of control. At no time did
the Model 3’s Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) system engage prior to it
crashing into the utility pole.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL.
RIVERA LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1800 Cooper Point RD SW #14, Olympia WA 98502 Tel: (360) 705-8200
Page 3
celia@riveralawoffices.com
Page 4
Case 3:25-cv-06052
Document 1
Filed 11/21/25
Page 4 of 29
10. Immediately upon impact the Model 3 burst into flames, in what was only the
beginning of an extremely hot fire that immediately engulfed the Model 3 and would
burn for many hours before responders from the fire department were able to
extinguish it completely.
11. Several bystanders ran to the vehicle and attempted to assist Jeff and Wendy Dennis but the Model 3’s door handles would not operate – by design – making it impossible
for anyone to open the doors from the outside of the vehicle. Several good Samaritans
even attempted to use a baseball bat to break the car windows to help the Dennisses
out of the burning vehicle. However, the increasingly intense fire forced them to
distance themselves from the rapidly growing fire. They could only watch helplessly
from a distance as the severely injured Jeff and Wendy burned in the inferno.
The Tesla as it struck the utility pole.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL.
RIVERA LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1800 Cooper Point RD SW #14, Olympia WA 98502 Tel: (360) 705-8200
Page 4
celia@riveralawoffices.com
Page 5
Case 3:25-cv-06052
Document 1
Filed 11/21/25
Page 5 of 29
Seconds after impact the Tesla exploded into flames.
12. First responders arrived on the scene several minutes later and extricated Jeff and
Wendy Dennis from the vehicle, but not before Wendy had died and Jeff had suffered
extreme burning of his legs, in addition to numerous other catastrophic injuries.
13. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332 because this action is
between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy, exclusive of
interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, exceeds $75,000.
14. Venue is proper within this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) as the events
giving rise to this litigation took place in Pierce County, Washington.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL.
RIVERA LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1800 Cooper Point RD SW #14, Olympia WA 98502 Tel: (360) 705-8200
Page 5
celia@riveralawoffices.com
Page 6
Case 3:25-cv-06052
Document 1
Filed 11/21/25
Page 6 of 29
IV. PARTIES
15. Plaintiff Jeffery L. Dennis is a citizen of the state of Washington, who at all times
relevant to this action has resided in Tacoma, Pierce County, Washington.
16. Plaintiff Renee Canavan as representative of the estate of Wendy Dennis resides in
Missouri.
17. Defendant Tesla, Inc. (hereinafter “Tesla”) is a Delaware corporation and is
headquartered in the state of Texas at 1 Tesla Road, Austin, Texas, and doing business
in Washington with numerous Tesla retail locations where Tesla sells its vehicles
directly to customers.
V. PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST TESLA
PRODUCT LIABILITY
(Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.030)
18. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each preceding and succeeding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
19. Tesla designed, manufactured, researched, tested, assembled, installed, marketed, advertised, distributed and sold the 2018 Tesla Model 3, with Vehicle Identification
Number 5YJ3E1EA9JF023043 (the “subject vehicle”), and as such, Defendant is both
a “manufacturer” and a “seller” pursuant to Washington Revised Code § 7.72.
20. Tesla designed, manufactured, researched, tested, and assembled the subject vehicle in the state of California while Tesla kept its official headquarters there. (Tesla later
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL.
RIVERA LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1800 Cooper Point RD SW #14, Olympia WA 98502 Tel: (360) 705-8200
Page 6
celia@riveralawoffices.com
Page 7
Case 3:25-cv-06052
Document 1
Filed 11/21/25
Page 7 of 29
moved to Texas but was still based in California when the subject vehicle was
designed and built).
21. Like all Tesla vehicles, the Tesla Model 3 is a “computer on wheels,” a highly
advanced automobile fitted with hardware and software designed to effectively
automate as many of the automobile’s features as possible.
22. But automated driving systems are only as good as the hardware, engineering, and
programming of the onboard computers used to execute it. Computers and software
frequently come with bugs, glitches, and unanticipated problems that cause their
computers to unexpectedly crash, malfunction, or work differently than intended.
These bugs are serious enough when located in a stationary box on a user’s desk—
they are magnified exponentially when a computer controls a more than two-ton
moving machine capable of accelerating from 0 to 60 miles per hour in under five
seconds. In these circumstances, the consequences of computer “bugs” and “glitches”
can be catastrophic, as in the case of the Dennis family’s Tesla.
23. At all times relevant to this action, Tesla knew that the subject vehicle would be
operated and inhabited by consumers like Plaintiffs without inspection for defects.
24. At the time of this collision, the subject vehicle was being used by Plaintiffs in a
manner and fashion that was foreseeable by Tesla, and as it was intended to be used.
25. The subject vehicle was not reasonably safe as designed and manufactured because, at
the time of its manufacture, the likelihood the product would cause harm to a driver
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL.
RIVERA LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1800 Cooper Point RD SW #14, Olympia WA 98502 Tel: (360) 705-8200
Page 7
celia@riveralawoffices.com
Page 8
Case 3:25-cv-06052
Document 1
Filed 11/21/25
Page 8 of 29
and/or passengers, including the Plaintiffs, and the seriousness of those harms
outweighed the burden on the Tesla to design a vehicle that would have prevented
those harms, and instead Tesla chose to expose Plaintiffs and other users of the subject
vehicle to those harms, including serious and horrific catastrophic injuries and in some
cased, violent and horrible death.
26. Plaintiffs’ harm was proximately caused by Tesla’s negligence in that the subject
vehicle was not reasonably safe as designed and lacked adequate warnings or
instructions.
27. The subject vehicle was not reasonably safe as designed because, at the time of manufacture, the likelihood that the vehicle would cause Plaintiffs’ harm or similar
harms, and the seriousness of those harms, outweighed the burden on Tesla to design a
product that would have prevented those harms and the adverse effect that an
alternative design that was practical and feasible would have on the usefulness of the
subject vehicle.
28. The subject vehicle was not reasonably safe because Tesla failed to provide adequate
warnings or instructions after the vehicle was manufactured because Tesla learned or
reasonably should have learned about dangers concerning the vehicle after it was
manufactured. Tesla had a duty issue warnings or instructions concerning the dangers
in the manner that a reasonably prudent manufacturer would have under the
circumstances. Tesla failed to exercise reasonable care to inform users of the subject
vehicle of its dangers.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL.
RIVERA LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1800 Cooper Point RD SW #14, Olympia WA 98502 Tel: (360) 705-8200
Page 8
celia@riveralawoffices.com
Page 9
Case 3:25-cv-06052
Document 1
Filed 11/21/25
Page 9 of 29
29. Tesla is strictly liable for Plaintiffs’ damages because Plaintiffs’ damages were
proximately caused by the fact that the subject vehicle was not reasonably safe in
construction.
30. The subject vehicle was unsafe to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary user.
31. The Plaintiffs were not aware of the unsafe conditions of the subject vehicle, and as a
proximate and foreseeable result Plaintiffs sustained the catastrophic injuries and
damages set forth herein, for which Tesla is strictly liable.
32. Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiff is entitled to damages in an amount to be proven
at the time of trial.
33. These defects concerning the subject vehicle included:
A. Tesla Knows Its Vehicles Experience Sudden Un-Commanded Acceleration
34. As Tesla has moved further toward the goal of computer-guided driving, one of the problems that continues to manifest in Tesla vehicles is that they accelerate suddenly
and without explanation, absent any driver direction or command. This sudden
uncommanded acceleration (“SUA”), in which a Tesla vehicle accelerates to full
power even though the driver reports that he or she did not command the acceleration
by pressing the accelerator pedal (the “SUA Defect”), has manifested in every Tesla
model line to date at rates that far exceed historical rates for any other vehicles.
Unfortunately, the Dennis family’s Model 3 appears to have the same SUA Defect as
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL.
RIVERA LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1800 Cooper Point RD SW #14, Olympia WA 98502 Tel: (360) 705-8200
Page 9
celia@riveralawoffices.com
Page 10
Case 3:25-cv-06052
Document 1
Filed 11/21/25
Page 10 of 29
other Tesla models.
35. Members of the public report that SUA has been and remains a problem with Tesla
vehicles. The most important source of field data regarding this issue is the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Consumer Complaint Database. The
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) maintains the Vehicle
Operator’s Questionnaire (VOQ) database, which tracks consumer complaints.
Anyone can submit a complaint online or by phone. The VOQ has been in operation
for more than 20 years and has been used by NHTSA and others for investigation of
possible car defects.
36. According to a study by NASA of uncommanded acceleration reports to the National
Highway Traffic Administration from 2000 to 2010, there rate of SUA incidents was 1
per 100,000 vehicles per year.
37. By comparison, within the first year of Model X vehicles being on the road, and with
only 18,240 Model X vehicles in use (the vast majority of which had been on the road
significantly less than one year), there were thirteen (13) reported incidents of Sudden
Uncommanded Acceleration—a staggeringly high rate of SUA incidents of 71 per
100,000 vehicles per year—seventy times the average reported to NHTSA.
38. From September 2016 through June 2020, 192 consumer complaints were submitted to NHTSA describing SUA events by Tesla vehicles. According to the auto industry
publication InsideEVs, Tesla sold approximately 543,540 vehicles in the United States
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL.
RIVERA LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1800 Cooper Point RD SW #14, Olympia WA 98502 Tel: (360) 705-8200
Page 10
celia@riveralawoffices.com
Page 11
Case 3:25-cv-06052
Document 1
Filed 11/21/25
Page 11 of 29
from 2013-2019, with over half of those having been sold since 2018. Thus, the
number of Tesla SUA incidents per 100,000/year is many multiples of the historical 1
SUA incident per 100,000 per year that NHTSA has historically reported.
39. The 192 complaints are striking in the similarity of the descriptions of the circumstances under which SUA events occur. They are also alarming in that the
incidents reflected in these complaints indicate that SUA events involving Tesla
vehicles have caused 171 crashes and injured 64 people.
40. They are also striking in how they are distributed across all Tesla models and model
years.
41. As of April 2021, there were at least 52 SUA complaints to the NHTSA regarding
Model3s and at least 150 SUA complaints regarding other Tesla models. As of April
2021, there were at least 52 SUA complaints to the NHTSA regarding Model3s and at
least 150 SUA complaints regarding other Tesla models. Tesla vehicles have 6.1
times the number of complaints made to NHTSA of SUA compared to the
average of all passenger cars and light trucks sold in the United States.
B. Tesla Designed its Automatic Emergency Braking System to Fail
42. Tesla equips its vehicles with systems that should prevent just this kind of accident.
Tesla included a feature called Automatic Emergency Braking (“AEB”), wherein the
vehicle’s computer system uses its forward-looking camera and the radar sensor to
determine the distance to objects in front of the vehicle. When a frontal collision is
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL.
RIVERA LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1800 Cooper Point RD SW #14, Olympia WA 98502 Tel: (360) 705-8200
Page 11
celia@riveralawoffices.com
Page 12
Case 3:25-cv-06052
Document 1
Filed 11/21/25
Page 12 of 29
considered unavoidable, the AEB system is designed to automatically apply the brakes
to reduce the severity of the impact. This is a major selling point, as Tesla trumpets
this capability as a safety feature, distinguishing Tesla vehicles from other
automobiles.
43. Model 3 Owner’s Manual:
44. Further, the Owner’s Manual states that AEB operates when the vehicle is going
between approximately 7 mph and 90 mph.
45. However, the AEB system apparently has been designed and programmed to
deactivate when it receives instructions from the accelerator pedal to drive full speed
into a fixed object. The Model 3 vehicle does not automatically apply the brakes, or
will stop applying the brakes, “in situations where you are taking action to avoid a
potential collision.” These situations include the driver turning the steering wheel
sharply, pressing the accelerator pedal, or pressing and releasing (or pumping) the
brake pedal.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL.
RIVERA LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1800 Cooper Point RD SW #14, Olympia WA 98502 Tel: (360) 705-8200
Page 12
celia@riveralawoffices.com
Page 13
Case 3:25-cv-06052
Document 1
Filed 11/21/25
Page 13 of 29
46. What this means is that the Model 3’s computer acts the same way any time the
computer believes—rightly or wrongly—that the driver is commanding full throttle
acceleration directly into fixed objects immediately in front of the vehicle. The upshot
is that Tesla has designed and manufactured a vehicle capable of accelerating from
zero to 60 miles per hour in under 5 seconds—acceleration previously achievable only
in a select number of exotic sports cars—and equipped the vehicle with the ability to
sense objects in its path and brake automatically to prevent or minimize frontal
impacts. But despite all these features, Tesla has programmed these systems to allow
the Model 3 to engage with full throttle acceleration into fixed objects, such as walls,
fences, beams, and poles.
47. Tesla’s failure to resolve the SUA problem in the Model 3 and its other vehicle models
—or to at least mitigate the problem by building in a fail-safe braking mechanism to
prevent collisions such as Plaintiffs’—is inexplicable. It is made worse by Tesla’s
apparent response to simply blame the driver—a response consistent with other
automobile manufacturers far less technologically advanced and savvy than Tesla. But
blaming the driver is not an acceptable excuse. The circumstances described above
have now led to the catastrophic injuries and death alleged by the Dennis family. In
fact, had it not been for the skillful efforts of Mr. Dennis to steer the speeding Tesla
away from other vehicles, other innocent bystanders might have been injured or killed.
Tesla must be held responsible for the damage caused and created by its unsafe
vehicle.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL.
RIVERA LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1800 Cooper Point RD SW #14, Olympia WA 98502 Tel: (360) 705-8200
Page 13
celia@riveralawoffices.com
Page 14
Case 3:25-cv-06052
Document 1
Filed 11/21/25
Page 14 of 29
C. Tesla’s Battery Design Is Dangerously Defective
48. The Dennis family asserts that defects in the design of the vehicle’s battery
configuration and chemistry caused the Tesla Model 3 to explode upon impact with
the traffic signal pole. These defects include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. The vehicle’s high voltage battery pack contains thousands of highly
explosive batteries and Tesla’s design unnecessarily exposed a significant
number of the batteries to catastrophic damage in a frontal impact with a
narrow object.
b. Tesla placed portions of the battery pack where they were unnecessarily
vulnerable to frontal impact.
c. Tesla negligently placed lithium-ion batteries in battery packs without
using adequate insulative material to reduce or eliminate the likelihood of
thermal runaway, a known risk, which is what caused the vehicle to
explode into flames upon impact.
d. Tesla used a highly explosive battery chemistry when there were other
available, feasible, and less expensive battery chemistries that would have
greatly reduced the likelihood of an explosive fire such as occurred. Tesla
used a far safer battery chemistry in its Model 3 vehicles manufactured and
sold in China.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL.
RIVERA LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1800 Cooper Point RD SW #14, Olympia WA 98502 Tel: (360) 705-8200
Page 14
celia@riveralawoffices.com
Page 15
Case 3:25-cv-06052
Document 1
Filed 11/21/25
Page 15 of 29
e. Tesla’s choice of design, battery insulation, and chemistry caused the
vehicle to explode and resulted in a hard-to-extinguish fire which
unnecessarily prevented the rescue of Mrs. Dennis and delayed the rescue
of Mr. Dennis before the vehicle’s fire caused him catastrophic injuries.
f. Tesla also negligently failed to adequately test its revolutionarily new
design to determine the safety of the vehicle’s fuel system, i.e., the battery
pack.
49. These defects created substantial dangers which were unknown to the Dennisses and
the public in general, nor would they be recognized by the ordinary user. Tesla failed
to use feasible safer alternative designs and failed to give adequate warnings of the
dangers associated with the inherent risks of its defective designs.
50. Tesla has known of this defect since before 2010, when Tesla filed patents on fire
retardant material to try to limit the tendency of lithium-ion batteries to experience
rapid thermal runaway. However, Tesla vehicles continue to explode at a much higher
rate than any other electric vehicle on the market.
51. Tesla has known since 2013 that rapid thermal runaway was not just a theoretical
possibility. Real world events began occurring,1 some of which were deadly.2
A driver
reported that he hit debris in the road in Kent, Washington, on October 1, 2013, and his Model S became disabled and then caught on fire. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/tesla-says-car-fire-began-inbattery-after-crash/; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0kjI08n4fg (Note: some explicit language in video)
A driver
was killed on March 23, 2018, when his Model X crashed into a concrete highway divider in Mountain View, California, and caught fire. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-31/tesla-saysdriver-s-hands-weren-t-on-wheel-at-time-of-accident COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES RIVERA LAW OFFICES, PLLC AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL.
1800 Cooper Point RD SW #14, Olympia WA 98502 Tel: (360) 705-8200
Page 15
celia@riveralawoffices.com
Page 16
Case 3:25-cv-06052
Document 1
Filed 11/21/25
Page 16 of 29
52. Tesla vehicles have seen numerous and frequent complaints of fires related to their
unstable and inadequately protected batteries. This has resulted in fires that have
ignited spontaneously or when impacted, have been difficult to extinguish, and have
frequently reignited after having been extinguished. Tesla has been aware of this
dangerous safety issue and has failed to make safety a priority despite having had
access to safer battery protection innovations for many years, including its own patent
for an intumescent fire retardant.3
D. The Tesla Door Handle Design Unnecessarily Prevented Rescue
53. Tesla employs a unique door handle design that provides electronic exterior handles
that lie flush with the vehicle. Inside, they open the doors with a push of a button. All
this only happens IF the batteries are providing electricity. However, the batteries are
designed to shut off in the event of a crash.
54. Outer door handles on Tesla’s also depend on battery power to operate. When those
fail due to lack of charge or an emergency like a collision, it can have fatal
consequences.
55. To open the doors from outside the vehicle when the electricity is off requires the
breaking of a window. When the car’s batteries explode, it quickly becomes too hot for
rescuers to react effectively. Potential rescuers expect to be able to open the car’s
doors with the handles. Unless they have been specifically trained about Tesla’s
http://www.patentsencyclopedia.com/app/20100086844; https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2577768A4/un
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL.
RIVERA LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1800 Cooper Point RD SW #14, Olympia WA 98502 Tel: (360) 705-8200
Page 16
celia@riveralawoffices.com
Page 17
Case 3:25-cv-06052
Document 1
Filed 11/21/25
Page 17 of 29
electric door latch design, they wouldn’t know that the only way to get into the car is
to break a window.
56. Interiorly, the Tesla doors open by pushing a button. However, again, this only works
IF the batteries are supplying power to the door handle. Otherwise, there is a manual
release that is not associated with the usual release button. If occupants haven’t been
informed about where to find and operate the manual release mechanism, they become
trapped in the vehicle.
57. By far the most critical danger precipitated by faulty handles leads to entrapment by
occupants, preventing passengers from being able to escape from the interior while at
the same time hampering the efforts of others outside the vehicle to be able to free
them. 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 danger posed by power loss during a crash, followed by fire, is not
speculative—it is a predictable and well-documented hazard. Defendant Tesla failed to
provide adequate instructions or warnings that would have alerted users, including
non-owners unfamiliar with the vehicle’s design, to the existence and use of the
hidden manual release.
58. Defendant Tesla cannot credibly claim ignorance of the fact that the mechanism is
defective in its design and further defective because of its inadequate instructions or
warnings. After the release of the subject vehicle but before the time of the subject
collision, customers repeatedly raised the defective design and its inadequate
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL.
RIVERA LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1800 Cooper Point RD SW #14, Olympia WA 98502 Tel: (360) 705-8200
Page 17
celia@riveralawoffices.com
Page 18
Case 3:25-cv-06052
Document 1
Filed 11/21/25
Page 18 of 29
instructions or warnings as a safety concern. For nearly a decade before the crash,
Defendant Tesla had repeated and direct notice that its reliance on electronic door
systems created a serious risk of entrapment. Owners, bystanders, and first responders
documented instances where Tesla occupants survived crash forces but could not
escape when electrical power failed and fire ensued.4 Firefighters and rescuers
reported occasions where they were unable to save occupants because the doors would
not open once power was lost.5 Consumers lodged dozens of complaints with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”), repeatedly documenting
their horror upon discovering—often too late—that the doors cannot be opened when
power fails.
59. A sample of a multitude of ongoing complaints through various online TESLA forums
show the preponderance of costly defective door handles as well as owners’ concerns
over safety due to these defects.6
60. The defective and unreasonably dangerous condition of the subject vehicle was a
cause and a substantial factor in the fatal injuries of Wendy Dennis and the injuries to
Jeff Dennis.
https://www.tesla-fire.com/
See, e.g., https://www.nhtsa.gov/?nhtsaId=11591608; https://www.nhtsa.gov/?nhtsaId=11592780; https:// www.nhtsa.gov/?nhtsaId=11614665; https://www.nhtsa.gov/?nhtsaId=11111289; https://www.nhtsa.gov/? nhtsaId=11317593; https://www.nhtsa.gov/?nhtsaId=11460242; https://www.nhtsa.gov/?nhtsaId=11473540. All the herein listed NHTSA ID reports are available at www.nhtsa.gov .
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/door-handle-failures.97673/page-3; https://forums.tesla.com/forum/ forums/door-handle-problems-0; https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/drivers-door-cant-open-fromoutside.62182 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES RIVERA LAW OFFICES, PLLC AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL.
1800 Cooper Point RD SW #14, Olympia WA 98502 Tel: (360) 705-8200
Page 18
celia@riveralawoffices.com
Page 19
Case 3:25-cv-06052
Document 1
Filed 11/21/25
Page 19 of 29
61. At the time of the subject incident, the subject vehicle was being used in a manner
reasonably foreseeable to Defendant Tesla.
62. As a result of the defective and unreasonably dangerous condition of the subject
vehicle, Jeff and Wendy Dennis sustained enhanced injuries.
63. Defendant Tesla’s design defects enhanced Jeff and Wendy Dennis’ injuries and were a
substantial factor in causing Wendy’s death by preventing their rescue.
64. Without Defendant Tesla’s design defects, Jeff and Wendy Dennis would have survived and had a chance to escape the subject vehicle after the crash.
65. The above-described defects caused or substantially contributed to causing the Plaintiffs’ damages as set out below.
PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES
Under California Civil Code of Procedure section 3294(a).
66. Plaintiffs re-allege the foregoing as if fully set forth herein.
67. The Subject Vehicle was designed, engineered, tested, and manufactured in California.
68. Washington law allows application of another state’s punitive damage law if that state
has an interest in regulating a defendant’s conduct.
69. California has a strong interest in regulating the conduct of manufacturers who put
dangerously defective products on the market.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL.
RIVERA LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1800 Cooper Point RD SW #14, Olympia WA 98502 Tel: (360) 705-8200
Page 19
celia@riveralawoffices.com
Page 20
Case 3:25-cv-06052
Document 1
Filed 11/21/25
Page 20 of 29
70. California Civil Code of Procedure (CCCP) section 3294(a) provides that a plaintiff
may recover punitive damages where the defendant acted with malice, oppression or
fraud – disjunctive terms, each of which can support an award of punitive damages.
71. In this case Tesla acted with malice, oppression or fraud in putting the Subject Vehicle on the market and concealing defects Tesla knew about and failed to correct prior to
both the manufacture of the Subject Vehicle and the Subject Incident.
72. Tesla’s wrongful conduct as described herein was motivated by unreasonable financial
gain, with disregard for the safety and well-being of the motoring public, including
decedent and was done so with malice, oppression and/or fraud.
73. The unreasonably dangerous nature of Tesla’s conduct, together with the high likelihood of injury resulting from the conduct, was known by the managing agent,
director, officer, or other person responsible for making policy decisions on behalf of
Tesla.
74. At the time of the Subject Incident, Tesla knew its vehicles were prone to sudden
uncommanded acceleration and failed to either correct this defect or warn of its
existence.
75. At the time of the Subject Incident, the Subject Tesla failed to properly detect and/or effectively respond to the presence of the utility pole into which the Subject Tesla
crashed.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL.
RIVERA LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1800 Cooper Point RD SW #14, Olympia WA 98502 Tel: (360) 705-8200
Page 20
celia@riveralawoffices.com
Page 21
Case 3:25-cv-06052
Document 1
Filed 11/21/25
Page 21 of 29
76. The Subject Vehicle’s AEB systems failed to engage any braking, deceleration, or
steering to prevent this fatal collision.
77. Tesla knowingly programed its AEB system to fail under the circumstances involved
in this case.
78. Tesla knew that its vehicles had an extremely high rate of complaints of sudden
uncommanded acceleration yet programmed its AEB system to not activate if any
acceleration was detected by the vehicle’s sensors.
79. Tesla knew that the Subject Vehicle’s defective fuel system, i.e., battery pack, design
and placement drastically increased the likelihood of a catastrophic fire, such as
occurred in this case.
80. Tesla knew that the Subject Vehicle’s design failed to adequately protect the battery
pack from damage likely to result in a catastrophic fire, such as occurred in this case.
81. Tesla failed to perform adequate testing of its radically new and experimental design to ensure the design effectively protected the vehicle’s battery pack from frontal pole
collisions such as the one involved in this case.
82. Tesla, through its officers, employees, and agents, knew that the Subject Vehicle had a
collision avoidance system that was not fully tested for safety.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL.
RIVERA LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1800 Cooper Point RD SW #14, Olympia WA 98502 Tel: (360) 705-8200
Page 21
celia@riveralawoffices.com
Page 22
Case 3:25-cv-06052
Document 1
Filed 11/21/25
Page 22 of 29
83. Tesla further knew that its unique door handle design had been blamed for numerous
instances of people being trapped in their vehicles and instances of rescuers being
unable to open the Tesla vehicle doors because of the door handle’s defective design.
84. Despite knowing of these deficiencies, Tesla advertised its vehicles in a way that greatly overestimated their capabilities and hid their deficiencies, including but not
limited to the following:
a. Tesla engaged in malicious and/or fraudulent practices within the meaning of
CCCP section 3294(a) by misrepresenting the nature of and safety of its products
including but not limited to Tesla’s vehicles, hardware, software, door handles,
battery configurations, and battery technology as set forth in this Complaint,
including but not limited to the following:
i. Tesla falsely overstated the safety of its vehicles.
ii. Tesla falsely overstated the performance capabilities of its vehicles.
iii. Tesla knows that its vehicles are defective and unsafe but represents
that they are safe.
iv. Tesla has known throughout the time it has marketed and sold its
vehicles that Tesla’s fire safety systems were defective and unsafe but
represented to the public that these systems increase safety.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL.
RIVERA LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1800 Cooper Point RD SW #14, Olympia WA 98502 Tel: (360) 705-8200
Page 22
celia@riveralawoffices.com
Page 23
Case 3:25-cv-06052
Document 1
Filed 11/21/25
Page 23 of 29
v. Tesla’s customers are for the most part untrained in understanding the
inherent dangers involved with the door handle technology.
vi. Tesla tells its customers that they are safer when driving a Telsa than
they would be if they were driving another kind of vehicle.
vii.Tesla has falsely claimed that it can prove Tesla vehicles are safer than
other vehicles.
viii.Tesla knows it cannot prove Tesla vehicles are safer than other
vehicles.
ix. The statistics Tesla publishes on its website to support its fire safety
claims are false.
x. The statistics Tesla uses to support its fire safety claims are misleading.
xi. Tesla knows that the statistics it uses to support its fire safety claims are
false.
xii.Tesla knows that the statistics it uses to support its fire safety claims are
misleading.
xiii.Tesla has unconscionably left its dangerously defective vehicles on the
market and on public streets and highways knowing it has not
adequately remedied the vehicles’ defects.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL.
RIVERA LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1800 Cooper Point RD SW #14, Olympia WA 98502 Tel: (360) 705-8200
Page 23
celia@riveralawoffices.com
Page 24
Case 3:25-cv-06052
Document 1
Filed 11/21/25
Page 24 of 29
b. Tesla and its Officer(s) have made numerous false and/or misleading statements
overstating the safety of Tesla vehicles, including but not limited to the following:
i.
“At Tesla, we believe that technology can help improve safety. That’s why Tesla vehicles are engineered to be the safest cars in the world. We
believe the unique combination of passive safety, active safety, and
automated driver assistance is crucial for keeping not just Tesla drivers
and passengers safe, but all drivers on the road.”
ii.
“Because of their strength, Tesla’s battery packs rarely incur serious
damage in accidents. And, in the extremely unlikely event that a fire
occurs, the state-of-the-art design of our battery packs ensures that its
safety system works as intended and isolates a fire to select areas
within the battery while simultaneously venting heat away from the
passenger cabin and the vehicle.”
iii.
“Active safety features come standard on all Tesla vehicles made after September 2014 for an added layer of safety beyond the physical
structure of each car. Because every Tesla is connected, we’re able to
use the billions of miles of real-world data from our global fleet – of
which more than 9 billion have been driven with Autopilot engaged –
to understand the different ways accidents happen. We then develop
features that can help Tesla drivers mitigate or avoid accidents.”
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL.
RIVERA LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1800 Cooper Point RD SW #14, Olympia WA 98502 Tel: (360) 705-8200
Page 24
celia@riveralawoffices.com
Page 25
Case 3:25-cv-06052
iv.
Document 1
Filed 11/21/25
Page 25 of 29
“Our global data indicates that, between 2012 and 2023, approximately one Tesla vehicle fire event occurred for every 135 million vehicle
miles traveled. By comparison, data from the NFPA and U.S.
Department of Transportation indicate that one vehicle fire occurs in
the United States for every 17 million miles traveled. Compared to
average vehicles on the road, Tesla vehicles are comparatively even
less likely to be involved in a fire event than these numbers suggest,
because Tesla's data includes fire events that are caused by structure
fires, wildfires, arson, and other causes unrelated to the vehicle,
whereas the NFPA data excludes any fires where a structure is
involved.” [This claim is baseless.]
85. At all times material hereto and prior to the Subject crash, Tesla had specific
knowledge through its officers, directors, managers and/or other employees/agents,
including its CEO Elon Musk, that its product was defective in all the ways described
herein.
86. At all times material hereto and prior to the Subject crash, Tesla had specific
knowledge through its officers, directors, managers, or other employees/agents,
including its CEO Elon Musk, that its product was defective based on, among other
things, inadequate design, testing, and manufacture.
87. At all times material hereto and prior to the Subject crash, Tesla had specific knowledge through its officers, directors, managers or other employees/agents,
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL.
RIVERA LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1800 Cooper Point RD SW #14, Olympia WA 98502 Tel: (360) 705-8200
Page 25
celia@riveralawoffices.com
Page 26
Case 3:25-cv-06052
Document 1
Filed 11/21/25
Page 26 of 29
including its CEO Elon Musk, that its product was defective based on numerous prior
similar incidents and collisions in which its systems on Tesla vehicles partially or
completely failed, causing significant property damage, severe injury and catastrophic
death to their occupants and/or the public.
88. At all times material hereto and prior to the Subject crash, Tesla failed to correct its defective product and instead continued to mislead the public as to the purported
capabilities and safety of the product through the public statements of the company
and statements by its CEO Elon Musk, despite having the foregoing knowledge.
89. Tesla had knowledge that the defects described herein were inherently dangerous to persons and property and that the continued use of vehicles such as the Subject
Vehicle was likely to cause injury or death, but Tesla nevertheless continued to market
the product without making feasible modifications to eliminate the dangers or making
adequate disclosure and warning of such dangers.
90. The conduct of Tesla was motivated by financial gain and by a desire to gain market share. Tesla and its CEO, Elon Musk, specifically made the decision to continue to
profit from the sales of their defective vehicles without taking the appropriate steps to
ensure the safety of their occupants and others.
91. At all times material hereto, Tesla’s conduct was done so with malice, oppression and/ or fraud.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL.
RIVERA LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1800 Cooper Point RD SW #14, Olympia WA 98502 Tel: (360) 705-8200
Page 26
celia@riveralawoffices.com
Page 27
Case 3:25-cv-06052
Document 1
Filed 11/21/25
Page 27 of 29
92. At all times material hereto, Tesla had actual knowledge of the wrongfulness of its
conduct and the probability that injury or damage to people such as Mr. and Mrs.
Dennis, and, despite that knowledge, acted with malice, oppression and/or fraud,
resulting in the catastrophic injuries to Jeff Dennis, the death of Wendy Dennis, and
Plaintiffs’ damages as set forth herein and which will be described fully at trial.
93. As a direct and proximate result of the of Tesla’s willful and conscious disregard of the
rights or safety of others, including decedent and Plaintiffs and its acting with malice,
oppression and/or fraud, Plaintiffs suffered the damages set out herein and are entitled
to punitive damages according to proof at the time of trial.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
94. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court:
a. Award damages to Plaintiff Jeff Dennis Individually compensating him for his
injuries and past, present, and future economic and non-economic damages in
amounts to be proven at trial; including but not limited to:
i. Past and future medical expenses,
ii. Past and future lost wages,
iii. Past and future lost household services,
iv. Past and future attendant care,
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL.
RIVERA LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1800 Cooper Point RD SW #14, Olympia WA 98502 Tel: (360) 705-8200
Page 27
celia@riveralawoffices.com
Page 28
Case 3:25-cv-06052
Document 1
Filed 11/21/25
Page 28 of 29
v. Past and future prosthetics,
vi. Past and future pain and suffering, embarrassment, emotional
distress, disfigurement, disability, lost social opportunities, and lost
enjoyment of life.
b. Award damages to Plaintiff Jeff Dennis Individually for his damages resulting
from the wrongful death of his spouse, Wendy Dennis, including but not
limited to:
i. Past and future loss of Wendy Dennis’ income, benefits, and financial
support,
ii. Past and future loss of Wendy Dennis’ household services,
iii. Past and future loss of consortium,
iv. Past and future loss of companionship, love, and affection,
v. Past and future emotional distress, grief, and sorrow.
c. Award damages for the wrongful death of Wendy Dennis to the Estate of
Wendy Dennis for all economic loss, including expenses related to her death,
including but not limited to funeral and burial expenses, past and future lost
income, and other benefits she would have earned in the future.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL.
RIVERA LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1800 Cooper Point RD SW #14, Olympia WA 98502 Tel: (360) 705-8200
Page 28
celia@riveralawoffices.com
Page 29
Case 3:25-cv-06052
Document 1
Filed 11/21/25
Page 29 of 29
d. Award all actual, general, special, incidental, statutory, and consequential
damages and restitution to which Plaintiffs are entitled.
e. Treble damages under RCW 19.86.090 against Defendant Tesla.
f. Award pre-judgment and post judgment interest on such monetary relief.
g. Award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and
h. Grant such further relief that the Court deems appropriate.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
95. Plaintiffs demand trial by jury on all issues so triable.
DATED this 21st day of November, 2025,
s/Celia M. Rivera Celia M. Rivera WSBA# 30342 Attorney for Plaintiff Rivera Law Offices, PLLS 1800 Cooper Point Rd SW #114 Olympia WA 98502 Tel. 360-705-8200 celia@riveralawoffices.com
s/Peggy Underbrink Peggy Underbrink, WSBA #38996 Attorney for Plaintiff Peggy Underbrink, Attorney at Law PO Box 2463 Bellingham WA 98227 Tel. 888-811-0391 peggy@peggyulaw.com
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL.
RIVERA LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1800 Cooper Point RD SW #14, Olympia WA 98502 Tel: (360) 705-8200
Page 29
celia@riveralawoffices.com
Back to 
