Flush-mounted door handles may enhance a car’s appearance, but their real-world safety is increasingly under scrutiny, and Tesla is now firmly defending its position.
The automaker is facing legal action over the design of its retractable door handles and has made it clear it does not intend to accept liability, even as allegations involve severe injuries and a fatality.
Tesla isn’t the only manufacturer to adopt flush-fitting door handles, but it has arguably drawn the most criticism for the design. That criticism has intensified following a lawsuit brought by a man who was badly injured in a crash involving one of the brand’s electric vehicles. For those unfamiliar with the case, here’s what allegedly happened.
Plaintiff Jefferey L. Dennis was driving a 2018 Tesla Model 3 with his wife, Wendy, when the vehicle reportedly accelerated uncontrollably without driver input. According to the lawsuit, the car slammed into a utility pole, failed to activate its automatic braking system, and then burst into flames.
The retractable door handles allegedly did not extend or function properly, preventing bystanders from opening the doors. Rescuers were forced to smash a window to extract the occupants. Wendy Dennis later died from her injuries, while her husband suffered severe burns to his legs and additional trauma.
The lawsuit argues that Tesla bears responsibility not only for the crash itself but also for failing to adequately warn occupants about the vehicle’s manual interior door releases, among other alleged defects.
Tesla, however, strongly disputes these claims. The company told the court that it is not responsible for either the accident or the injuries sustained and rejects the allegations in their entirety.
Beyond denying fault, Tesla appears particularly focused on blocking the plaintiff’s request for punitive damages. These damages are designed to punish companies for alleged misconduct, and in high-profile automotive cases, they can reach staggering sums, potentially costing billions of dollars. Tesla argues that punitive damages should not be allowed in this case.
An excerpt from Tesla’s legal response states: “Here, Plaintiffs allege that the crash occurred on January 7, 2023. But Plaintiffs did not file their Complaint until nearly three years later, on November 21, 2025.
Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages is therefore untimely, as it was filed long after the applicable two-year statute of limitations period had run. What happened to the Dennises is a tragedy, but, under applicable, binding law, their claim for punitive damages must be dismissed.”
This lawsuit is far from an isolated incident. Other families have come forward with claims that occupants, including children, were trapped inside Tesla vehicles after crashes when the door handles failed to operate. In some cases, those incidents also ended in death.
A recent investigation reported that at least 15 people have died in Tesla-related crashes where faulty electric door handles were cited as a contributing factor. The issue has grown serious enough that regulators are now examining whether existing safety rules adequately address electronically operated door handles.
With Tesla continuing to deny responsibility in similar cases nationwide, it appears likely that litigation surrounding this design choice will persist for the foreseeable future.
Also Read: 5 Cars for Asheville Mountain Weekenders and 5 That Don’t Handle Trails
