The parents of a college student who died in a Tesla Cybertruck crash last year are suing Elon Musk’s electric-vehicle company, alleging the truck’s electronic door design trapped their daughter in the burning vehicle and prevented her escape. The lawsuit highlights ongoing safety concerns about Tesla’s door systems: Just last month, a man and his two 9-year-old kids burned to death after their Tesla slammed into a tree and they couldn’t get the doors open, despite someone rushing to help them with a fire extinguisher.

Krysta Tsukahara, 19, was killed last November when the Cybertruck she was riding in crashed into a tree in Piedmont, Calif., and caught fire. Tsukahara, a student at the Savannah College of Art and Design in Georgia who had flown home for Thanksgiving break, was one of three people who died in the crash, along with the driver, 19-year-old Soren Dixon, and another passenger, 20-year-old Jack Nelson. A fourth passenger was rescued when a witness broke the vehicle’s window with a tree branch.

The wrongful death lawsuit, filed Thursday in Alameda County Superior Court by Carl and Noelle Tsukahara, claims their daughter survived the initial collision with only minor injuries but died from smoke inhalation and burns after becoming trapped inside the vehicle. The suit alleges the Cybertruck “lacked a functional, accessible, and conspicuous manual door release mechanism, fail-safe, or other redundant system for emergency egress”.

“We’ve had to endure not only the loss of our daughter, but the silence surrounding how this happened and why she couldn’t get out,” Carl Tsukahara said in a statement. “This company is worth a trillion dollars—how can you release a machine that’s not safe in so many ways?”

According to the lawsuit, Tesla’s electronic door system relies on a 12-volt battery that can fail during crashes, leaving occupants unable to open doors electronically. While the Cybertruck does include manual door releases, the rear door releases are located under a rubber mat in the door storage pocket and require occupants to remove the mat, pull a mechanical release cable forward, and then push the door open. Tesla has a whole page on its website about how to open Cybertruck doors when the car has no power. The lawsuit argues these manual releases are difficult to locate and operate, especially during an emergency.

“It’s just a horror story,” Roger Dreyer, attorney for the Tsukahara family, told the San Francisco Chronicle. “Tesla knows that it’s happened and that it’s going to happen, and they are doing nothing but selling the car with a system that entraps people and doesn’t provide a way of extraction.”

The case adds to mounting safety concerns about Tesla’s door designs across its vehicle lineup. In September, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration launched an investigation into Tesla’s 2021 Model Y vehicles after receiving reports that electronic door handles stopped working, trapping children inside. The probe covers approximately 174,300 vehicles and follows complaints where parents had to break windows to free their children from vehicles after the electronic door systems failed.

Tesla’s door design problems have been linked to multiple incidents beyond the Piedmont crash. Bloomberg News documented a series of cases where Tesla occupants were injured or killed after being unable to open doors following power loss, particularly after crashes. The NHTSA database contains more than 140 consumer complaints since 2018 related to Tesla doors getting stuck, not opening, or otherwise malfunctioning.

The Cybertruck itself has faced significant challenges since its launch. Tesla has issued at least eight recalls for the vehicle, including a recall in March affecting every single Cybertruck ever delivered through February 2025—some 46,000-plus vehicles—due to adhesive failure causing body panels to detach. Sales have also lagged initial projections, with industry analysts describing the truck’s commercial performance as disappointing.

In response to the growing scrutiny, Tesla’s chief designer Franz von Holzhausen said in September the company is working on combining electronic and manual door releases into a single mechanism to make them more intuitive during emergencies.

The Tsukahara family’s lawsuit seeks unspecified punitive damages and comes as Tesla faces multiple legal challenges regarding its vehicle safety designs. In August, a Florida jury awarded more than $240 million to victims of a 2019 fatal crash involving Tesla’s Autopilot system. The company also settled a separate lawsuit filed by relatives of a man who died in a 2016 crash after being unable to escape from a burning Tesla.

China is reportedly considering a ban on fully concealed door handles due to safety concerns, while European authorities have taken some measures to improve rescue protocols after a crash.

More in U.S.

NY sisters and DQ owners hit with $6M lawsuit for paying workers every 2 weeks — how they fought to change the loophole

Moneywise

110

Prosecutors Say Uber Driver Set Palisades Fire, Then Typed This Chilling Question Into ChatGPT

People

419

Police release new video to refute lawyer’s evidence claim in deadly crash involving Kyren Lacy

NY Post Sports

誰もが今共有、ストリーミング、プレイしているRPGゲームレイドシャドウレジェンド ·

AdAd

The Piedmont crash investigation revealed that Dixon, the driver, had alcohol, cocaine, and methamphetamine in his system at the time of the collision. However, the Tsukahara family’s attorney emphasized that multiple factors can contribute to crashes while highlighting Tesla’s responsibility for occupant safety systems.

“This is a case where two things can be true at the same time,” Matthew Davis, a lawyer representing the Nelson family in a separate lawsuit, told Bloomberg. “There can be people responsible for the crash and there is a company responsible for the fact that they couldn’t get out.”

Tesla did not immediately respond to Fortune‘s request for comment.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

DENVER (KDVR) — A University of Colorado student is among three people killed in a fiery Tesla Cybertruck crash that’s now the focus of two new wrongful death lawsuits.

The crash happened last Thanksgiving in Piedmont, California. Four friends were riding in a Tesla Cybertruck when it collided and burst into flames.

3 displaced from Aurora home after accidental lithium-ion battery fire

One survivor was rescued by a good Samaritan who used a big tree branch to break through the windows, but 20-year-old Jack Nelson, along with two others, was trapped inside.

Families involved in these lawsuits say some of the high-tech features became a barrier to survival.

“There was a motorist that was traveling behind the vehicle that was involved in the collision,” said Chief Jeremy Bowers with Piedmont Police Department. “When they turned the corner they saw the vehicle in flames and then the person exited the vehicle and helped extricate one of the involved parties out of the vehicle.”

Three students were trapped inside, including CU student Jack Nelson, who was in the back seat.

His family says he didn’t die in the crash; he died in the fire that followed, which he couldn’t escape.

“There was alcohol involved, there was speed and and so there are people who are responsible for the crash and you know these kids were all friends,” Matt Davis, Nelson’s family attorney, said. “The family isn’t out to punish any of them. They’re all grieving too. That’s part of the lawsuit, but the real part of the lawsuit is after the crash happened, they couldn’t get out.”

In lawsuits filed this week, attorneys point to the Cybertruck’s sleek but sealed design: No mechanical door handles outside, a manual release inside, hidden under a liner at the bottom door.

More in U.S.

Woman allegedly shoots shopper who was upset she didn't say 'thank you': Affidavit

ABC News

158

Man dies after brutal attack at South Bay train station

San Francisco Chronicle

'Confused' Bear Charges Through Supermarket, Injuring 2. The Next Day, Man Found Dead After Suspected Attack

People

121

Japanese citizens can apply for US citizenshipameric24 ·

AdAd

“When you design a product, especially a safety-critical product, which is the door handle of a car when you need to get out in an emergency,” said Davis. “It’s a fundamental concept that you have to design it to be safe and you have to anticipate what can go wrong in an emergency and you have to make it as easy as possible for the users of the product to survive.”

Colorado ranks among least safe states, again: Data report

The lawsuits also claim Tesla knew this was a risk, citing other documented cases of trapped occupants and complaints filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Federal investigators have even opened an investigation into complaints of stuck electronic doors.

“We think that the doors of these vehicles failed that test and it’s hard to believe that they reached the market without going through that validation process,” Davis said. “One of the hopes of the family is that this just doesn’t happen to other people.”

Jack was a sophomore at CU Boulder, home for the holidays. His family says he was on the verge of making full contributions to this world, but was taken too soon because of what they call “Tesla’s unsafe design.”

“It would be good if Tesla either recalled or retrofitted these products and warned people about the dangers of these doors stop functioning in crashes or other emergencies,” said Davis.

FOX31 also reached out to Tesla about the lawsuits. The company has not responded.

Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to FOX31 Denver.

Well, this is awkward (and we're not just referring to this truck's looks, steering, debut, or driver interface). Tesla finally came through on its promise to offer a cheaper, single-motor Cybertruck, then yanked it out of the lineup.

Tesla planned this sub-$75K version from the start, but it didn't debut until more than a year into Cybertruck production. To achieve this price point, you have to make do with less. There's no motor up front, which translates to a significant power deficit and no all-wheel drive. The single-motor, rear-wheel-drive Long Range makes 321 horsepower, versus the dual-motor's 593 horses and the tri-motor Beast's 834. Maximum towing capacity is reduced from 11,000 pounds with the multimotor versions to 7500 pounds here. There's also no launch mode, and attempts to brake torque for better acceleration resulted in a cut to power.

The Long Range Cybertruck reached 60 mph in 6.1 seconds in our testing. For comparison, the dual-motor model reached that velocity in 3.9 seconds, and the tri-motor Beast did so in 2.6 seconds. In fact, the Long Range Cybertruck is the slowest Tesla we've ever tested. (A 2014 Model S 60 was the next-least fleet, hitting 60 mph in 5.5 seconds.) It's also slower than other EV pickups we've tested, although none of those had a single-motor drivetrain.

That slowness is actually a boon for drivability, given the attention required to adjust to the Cybertruck's unusual steering. It's darty at low speeds thanks to the active steering rack's quick action (and the steering wheel turning just 0.9 revolution lock to lock) and assistance from the rear-wheel steering. A view from the side-mounted cameras helps the driver determine curb clearance in 90-degree right turns. You can select the optional Full Self-Driving mode ($8000) and surrender the controls. It's eerie, but it works impressively well.

The air-spring suspension that's standard in other Cybertrucks is not found here. Instead, it's coil springs and adaptive dampers all around. They do a commendable job, but the ride height is no longer adjustable. Despite that this version weighs more than 700 pounds less than the Beast, braking performance at 179 feet from 70 mph was nearly identical on the same 20-inch all-terrain tires.

The RWD model also has pleasant-enough cloth seating surfaces in place of upscale vinyl, and the fronts lack the ventilation function standard on other Cybertrucks. There's also no rear passenger display or in-bed power outlets, and the headlights are a simpler design.

As to its Long Range name, this Cybertruck managed 250 miles on our 75-mph highway loop. That exactly matched our result with the tri-motor Beast, but this single-motor pickup had a couple of handicaps. The lack of a standard motorized shutter over the bed hurts highway range—in our previous testing, we found that the rolltop-desk-style cover provided an 11 percent improvement versus an open-air bed. Tesla offered a hand-drawn cover, but it wasn't fitted to this test truck. (There's some consolation in that it avoids any obstruction to what must be the world's smallest rearview mirror.) And were it wearing the stock 18-inch wheels instead of the optional 20s, this Long Range's range likely would have been slightly longer still.

Even so, other electric pickups have done better in this test. A dual-motor Rivian R1T traveled 280 miles. That's with the 132-kWh battery and 22-inch wheels with all-terrain tires. A dual-motor Chevrolet Silverado LT, with a 170-kWh Extended Range battery and 22-inch wheels, managed 310 miles.

➡️ Skip the lot. Let Car and Driver help you find your next car.

Shop New Cars Shop Used Cars

The Cybertruck, this model in particular, has definitely been a slow seller for Tesla. Further evidence of that came about halfway through our loan. Just days after Tesla dropped off this test vehicle, the RWD Cybertruck dropped off the automaker's online configurator. It was available for only about five months. At least in that respect, it was quick.

You Might Also Like

• Car and Driver’s 10 Best Cars through the Decades

• How to Buy or Lease a New Car

• Lightning Lap Legends: Chevrolet Camaro vs. Ford Mustang!