Tesla FSD Fatal Crash Driver Charged with Manslaughter
Alina Collins
A Texas driver using Tesla's FSD crashed into a home, killing a 76-year-old woman — he now faces criminally negligent homicide charges in what may become the most consequential criminal case yet for Tesla's driver-assistance technology.
What exactly happened?
On June 19, 2025, Michael David Butler, 44, was making a food delivery near Houston with Tesla's FSD — Full Self-Driving (Supervised), a driver-assistance feature that requires the driver to stay alert and ready to take over.
Butler says he lost consciousness after switching music on the touchscreen. The car plowed into a home, killing a 76-year-old woman inside.
He was the sole occupant. Toxicology tests found no alcohol or drugs.
Why does the vehicle data contradict the driver's account?
Data extracted from the car shows Butler repeatedly pressed the accelerator, overriding FSD commands. The vehicle hit 73 mph (about 117 km/h) in a residential zone.
In the final moments before impact, there was no braking at all — directly contradicting a "loss of consciousness" claim.
Investigators also found Google searches on his device complaining that FSD was "not aggressive enough." This means → he may not have passively lost control but actively pushed the system to go faster.
What do Tesla and regulators say?
Tesla explicitly disputed Butler's account, stating that vehicle data shows the accelerator was continuously pressed by the driver before and during the crash.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has opened an investigation, folding this crash into its ongoing review of advanced driver-assistance systems.
In plain terms = Tesla's position in this case is "the system worked; the human didn't." But what regulators want to examine is precisely whether the system left too much room for human failure.
Is the name "Full Self-Driving" itself the problem?
FSD can handle steering, braking, and acceleration autonomously in many scenarios. Yet Tesla has always maintained it is not true autonomous driving — the driver must stay attentive and ready to intervene at all times.
Critics have long argued that the name "Full Self-Driving" is inherently misleading, fostering trust in the system that exceeds Tesla's own warnings.
This reflects a deeper contradiction: the product name implies full automation, but legal liability falls entirely on the driver. The outcome of this case could set a landmark precedent for where that boundary sits.
Content is for reference only, not financial advice.