Second California Cybertruck Lawsuit Alleges Design Flaws
In a fresh legal action tied to the deadly Cybertruck crash in Piedmont, California, the parents of Jack Nelson have filed a new lawsuit against Tesla in Alameda County Superior Court. The filing—made this week—claims the electric pickup had a catastrophic design defect that transformed a survivable crash into a fatal fire, trapping passengers inside as flames engulfed the vehicle.
The complaint, brought by the Nelson family and represented by the law firm Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger, asserts that Tesla executives “knew about the flaw for years and could have moved faster to fix the problem but did not.” The document quotes the central allegation and frames the crash as a preventable tragedy caused by a vehicle design that left occupants with no practical escape route during a post-crash fire.
Days earlier, a separate suit emerged from the family of another victim, Krysta Tsukahara, who died in the same crash. The two families, both grieving the loss of their young loved ones, describe the four passengers as close friends who were “on the verge of making meaningful contributions to the world.” The defendants face questions over whether a design feature intended to improve safety—electrically actuated doors—could be compromised in a fire to the point where occupants could not exit.
According to the court filings, Krysta Tsukahara (19) and Jack Nelson (20) were seated in the rear of the Cybertruck with two other passengers and the driver when the vehicle, traveling at high speed, struck a tree and caught fire on November 27, 2024. The fire’s heat is alleged to have disabled the vehicle’s electric doors, leaving the occupants trapped with no apparent means of escape until a rescuer shattered a window to free one survivor. The crash left the other occupants dead, the complaint notes, and the event has become a focal point for debates about automotive safety design in electric vehicles.
“The backup mechanical release for that door was concealed beneath the liner of the map pocket at the bottom of the door – hidden, unlabeled, and impractical to locate or use in the smoke and chaos of a post-crash fire,” the Nelsons said in a statement accompanying their filing. “As a result, the Cybertruck’s design left Jack and the other occupants with no practical way to escape.”
Regulatory Scrutiny and Safety Context
The lawsuits add to a broader conversation about the safety of Tesla’s door handles and escape mechanisms. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has opened an inquiry into the vehicle’s flush door handles and related emergency-access concerns, including reports from drivers who could not open back doors after exiting the vehicle to help passengers, sometimes forcing them to break windows to reach children inside. The agency’s review signals increased regulatory attention to how automated or “hidden” vehicle features perform in emergencies.
In parallel with the door-handle investigations, Tesla has faced other safety-related litigation and regulatory scrutiny. Earlier this year, a Florida jury awarded $243 million in damages to a family connected to a crash where Autopilot was implicated in a fatality. The sustained wave of legal actions highlights ongoing tensions between high-tech design innovations and the practical realities of emergency egress and occupant safety in electric vehicles.
As the Piedmont case advances, Tesla faces questions about whether its design choices will be deemed reasonable and whether the company had sufficient warning about potential defects. Legal observers note that outcomes in these cases could influence how automakers balance advanced features with straightforward, fail-safe mechanisms in the critical moments following a crash. The company has not publicly commented on these specific lawsuits, and it remains to be seen how the cases will unfold procedurally in Alameda County and beyond.
What’s Next?
Analysts say the suits will hinge on expert testimony about vehicle safety design, defect causation, and reasonable foreseeability of the alleged risk. Plaintiffs will likely pursue evidence about prior knowledge of the design issue and whether alternative alerting or mechanical-release options could have improved survivability. For Tesla, the litigation poses continued reputational and financial exposure as regulators and courts scrutinize evolving standards for emergency egress in electric vehicles.
