FEATURE
The Mysterious Case of the Bullet That Burned a Tesla Model S
A Tesla Model S caught fire in Pennsylvania on December 31, 2014, shortly after its owner, John Schneider, had collected the new vehicle. Although the incident initially appeared to be another case of an electric-car battery fire, Tesla’s investigation reportedly reached a far more unusual conclusion.
The fire
Schneider said he was driving near Pittsburgh when he noticed smoke and flames emerging around the rear passenger seat, close to the battery cells. He stopped the car and escaped before the fire spread through the cabin. Emergency crews subsequently secured the area and extinguished the blaze.
Tesla engineers took possession of the damaged vehicle and began investigating the cause. Schneider later described the Model S as a total loss.
Tesla’s initial agreement with the owner
The incident occurred during a period of heightened public concern about fires involving Tesla vehicles. According to documents described in the original report, a Tesla regional director contacted Schneider on the day of the fire.
Five days later, Tesla reportedly offered to assume Schneider’s outstanding debt and provide a replacement Model S with an extended warranty. Schneider accepted the arrangement, but the agreement did not end the dispute.
A bullet reportedly caused the battery fire
After examining the vehicle, Tesla reportedly concluded that the battery’s thermal event had been caused by a bullet fired from inside the passenger cabin. The account does not establish who fired the shot or explain the circumstances surrounding it.
Tesla determined that the battery fire was caused by a bullet fired from within the vehicle’s passenger cabin.
On January 21, 2015, approximately three weeks after the fire, Tesla sent Schneider a letter withdrawing the original settlement agreement. The dispute was ultimately resolved outside court, and the terms of the final settlement were not disclosed.
Questions left unanswered
The public record described in the article leaves several important questions unresolved, including why a firearm was allegedly discharged inside the newly collected car and which party most strongly favored keeping the final resolution confidential.
The reported investigation distinguishes this event from a spontaneous battery failure: Tesla’s position was that external physical damage initiated the fire. Because the lawsuit ended in a private settlement, however, the complete circumstances were never publicly established.
Battery-fire safety
Tesla and other electric-vehicle manufacturers have continued developing battery designs intended to contain thermal events, limit the spread of fire between cells and make vehicle fires easier for emergency crews to manage. The unusual cause alleged in this case also illustrates why investigators must consider collision damage, penetration and other external factors when determining how a battery fire began.