We'll disagree on that count...witness pin to drive. They've clearly established many lockout mechanisms for folks to employ if they feel unsafe with the car in the default state. They cannot be blamed if folks choose not to employ them.
On the other hand, if their literature is incorrect or even misleading to the majority...well that's a different story.
The whole purpose of this post this to convey that folks have a responsibility to operate their dangerous property with full knowledge and foresight of how variables could result in an undesirable outcome. It's the same with a stove, lawnmower, or chainsaw. As someone else here mentioned, there is, of course, a reasonableness limit to this. No one would permit a vehicle that could be touched from the exterior with no key or other pre-existing conditions to launch itself at great speed. But this is not what we're talking about.
We're talking about a car that has conditions that need to be met in order to operate, and the mother should have absolutely familiarised herself with those before letting her child anywhere near the front seat. And please don't give me the excuse that she wasn't aware of where the child was, because I intimately understand how a parent's sense of perception works with young children. You may not always be reading fine detail of their actions, but you're hyper aware of their general location and disposition.
Don't get me wrong, there is certainly some level of "reasonable" that needs to be established when you're "reinventing the wheel" (just like my gripes of the car auto locking itself when I get out), so I can absolutely see Tesla settling this one even if the woman is ultimately culpable, but it doesn't excuse her actions one bit.
I do think a thorough test and documentation effort needs to come out of this to indicate exactly what is required to engage the drive function of the car.
