When a Tesla Became a Coffin: The Tragedy, the Lawsuits, and the Safety Questions
It was meant to be a night of friends, laughter, and a drive home. But when a Tesla Cybertruck crashed and burst into flames, it became something far darker:
a locked cage, trapping passengers inside as smoke and fire consumed them. The death of 19‑year‑old Krysta Tsukahara has ignited fierce debate over whether a vehicle meant to embody the future instead turned into a death trap.
The Crash That Sparked Outrage
On November 27, 2024, in Piedmont, California, a Cybertruck carrying four young people veered off the road, crashed into a wall and a tree, and caught fire.
Three of the occupants — Soren Dixon (19), Jack Nelson (20), and Krysta Tsukahara (19) — died in the blaze; a fourth, Jordan Miller, survived after another motorist smashed a window and pulled him to safety.
The California Highway Patrol’s preliminary report cited excessive speed and substance impairment as contributing factors. Dixon, the driver, was found to have very high levels of alcohol and drugs in his system.
Autopsies and legal filings indicate that Krysta may have survived the impact with only minor physical trauma, but died of smoke inhalation and burns because she could not exit the vehicle.
The Allegations: A Design Flaw That Sealed Her Fate
The heart of the lawsuits filed by Krysta’s parents centers on the Cybertruck’s electronic door system:
In the post-crash scenario, electrical power to the vehicle failed, allegedly disabling the electronic controls for the doors.
Parents of college student killed in Tesla crash allege design flaw trapped her in the burning car https://t.co/DmZj0j99Sz pic.twitter.com/b5kuzXEYhC
— New York Post (@nypost) October 3, 2025
Rear-seat passengers were required to use manual release cables, hidden beneath mats or storage liners — a mechanism critics argue is extremely hard to find, particularly in smoke, heat, and chaos.
The lawsuits claim Tesla knew or should have known about the risk of entrapment but continued selling vehicles with this door design.
The suit filed by Jack Nelson’s family similarly names Tesla and the estates of the driver and owner, arguing that the vehicle’s design converted what might have been a survivable crash into a fatal trap.
Some technical details worth noting: the Cybertruck uses flush, touch-sensitive or button‑based door activation, rather than standard exterior handles. In crash scenarios where power is lost, this design may leave doors inoperable unless a manual system is located and used.
Conflicts, Responsibility, and Blame
Tesla is not the only party named in these lawsuits. The driver’s estate and the registered vehicle owner (a relative) have also been named in suits by both the Tsukahara and Nelson families.
Tesla has not made a public comment regarding these new lawsuits.
Meanwhile, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is reportedly investigating Tesla’s door handle and emergency egress design across models — a development that could have implications for this case.
Why This Story Matters
Design choices have life-and-death consequences. If occupants cannot exit a vehicle when it loses power, even a crash they survive can become fatal.
Future liability for EVs may hinge on post-crash egress. As more vehicles rely on powered systems, fallback manual mechanisms become critical.
The narrative isn’t simple. Impairment and excess speed may have caused the crash, but the lawsuits argue the design turned the crash into a death sentence.
Conclusion
The tragedy of Krysta Tsukahara’s death forces us to confront the question: when innovation fails, who pays the price? For a vehicle championed as cutting-edge, the allegation is stark — that a design meant to streamline door operation turned a crash survival situation into entrapment.
As the lawsuits move forward, Tesla’s response and the regulatory outcome may reshape how we evaluate safety in the electric-vehicle era. Technology can promise progress — but only if it protects lives when everything goes wrong.