“I was forced to climb to the back seat and break the rear passenger window with my legs to escape while the interior was burning.” That’s what Georgia Tesla owner Kevin Clouse wrote in an official complaint filed with federal regulators, and those very words are now at the focal point of an ever-expanding safety probe concerning the emergency egress system for the 2022 Tesla Model 3.
On December 23, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Office of Defects Investigation initiated a petition review for a potential defect related to an estimated 179,071 Model 3 vehicles for the 2022 model year. Allegedly, the mechanical door release function, which is relied upon as a backup system should the electric latch system fail, is “hidden, unlabeled, and not intuitive to locate during an emergency.” In regard to Clouse’s situation, his vehicle had actually caught on fire, making his electrical doors unavailable, but most significantly, he was left fighting for life due to a lack of proper labels.
The door handles in Tesla’s models are also a classic example of Tesla’s design features. The flush-handle design is electrically operated. It does contribute to the aerodynamic design of the car. However, it also depends on the power provided by the 12-volt battery in the car. The power source may go down in a split second in the case of severe car accidents or when the car is on fire. That forces the occupants or the rescue team to use the mechanical option. But it may be hard to access in the rear seats in Tesla’s models.
Model 3 is, however, not single-handedly facing this kind of scrutiny. In September, NHTSA began another investigation regarding around 174,000 units of Model Y SUVs due to complaints of parents breaking windows to save their children when electric door handles did not open because of fires. According to an investigation by Bloomberg, there were at least 15 deaths from Teslas over the previous 10 years in crash fires where people or first responders were unable to open doors. This is even more alarming because more than half of these fatalities occurred in late 2024.
Perhaps the most frightening of these incidents occurred in January 2023 in Tacoma, Washington. According to court documents, a Model 3 operated by a man named Jeff Dennis surged forward uncontrollably, hit a utility pole, and caught fire. His wife, Wendy Dennis, was killed instantly. Witnesses could not get into the car through doors designed to open electronically, which made it impossible through external handles. Only a very difficult-to-access manual door handle inside could open the doors. Severe burns are suffered by Jeff Dennis. Both of these factors led to a lawsuit filed against Tesla.
These matters are further entangled in broader governmental discourse on the safety of electric vehicles. In revised federal regulations such as FMVSS No. 305a, light electric vehicles are required to conform to strict post-collision standards in that there be no fire or explosion for a period of one hour following collision, with standardized emergency response manuals available for rescue personnel. Though these regulations take a very battery-centric and electrically safe design posture, they continue to affirm a position that emergency egress requirements must be “readily accessible and clearly identifiable.”
Experts have observed that the nature of EV fires poses different risks. For example, lithium-ion battery thermal runaway can generate toxic and flammable gases even when there is no fire apparent. Additionally, the risk of reburning days after the first fire is suppressed is a hazard that ironically favors seconds when lives may be at risk. This is why building safety engineering requires no compromises when designing obvious redundancies for mechanical exits. Tesla has provided owners’ manuals describing where the manual releases are located, and the company has recently initiated a new safety page where the doors will supposedly unlock automatically after a crash.
Although Tesla has its own footnotes indicating that this option may not be available on all models or production dates, the study may provide a solution for cars on the road. While the NHTSA petition process does not ensure that an auto recall will result, it represents the first salvo of investigation to determine whether an auto defect exists. When the government determines that an unreasonable safety risk exists with regard to Model 3’s emergency door releases for nearly 180,000 vehicles, it becomes possible that Tesla Motors must make necessary modifications. Loda’s investigation represents a challenge of auto manufacturers and government bodies to explore just how far minimalist auto design concepts must be pushed before auto safety becomes compromised with regard to exiting an auto during an emergency.