Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Liability of Tesla Motors for damage caused by its technician to the customer’s vehicle during a warranty repair visit
• Failure of the technician and Tesla Motors to promptly disclose visible damage and the resulting obligation to compensate for investigative costs
• Characterization of the claim as civil liability rather than a claim under the vehicle’s conventional manufacturer’s warranty
• Applicability of article 1463 of the Civil Code of Québec, making Tesla responsible for the fault of its technician in the performance of his duties
• Evidentiary weight of video and detector data, along with purchase records, to establish the source of damage and timing of the investigation
• Limits on recoverable damages for a corporation, excluding subjective stress and inconvenience claimed through its shareholder

Factual background and origin of the dispute
Michael Marianer CPA inc. (CPA inc.) owned a Tesla vehicle that required work on its steering system. On 29 August 2024, a certified Tesla Motors technician went to the residence of the company’s shareholder, Mr. Michael Marianer, to perform warranty-covered repairs on the vehicle’s steering system. During this service visit, the technician damaged the vehicle but did not inform either the owner or his employer of the incident. Later that same day, Mr. Marianer noticed damage to the front bumper and front apron of the Tesla. Concerned about how and when this damage had occurred, he contacted the Tesla technician by text message, using the same communication channel that had been used to arrange the repair appointment. The technician responded that he had no recollection of having damaged the vehicle.
Unable to identify any other plausible source of the accident, Mr. Marianer undertook his own investigation. He purchased software, costing 136.82 $, designed to analyze the images and data captured by the Tesla’s various cameras and detectors. He also requested from Tesla Motors an official time-stamped analysis of the vehicle’s detector records to help pinpoint the event. Although Mr. Marianer claimed that viewing and analyzing these videos took nearly three days, the documentary record showed that he purchased the software on 2 September 2024 and contacted Tesla Motors by 4 September 2024, already asserting that the footage demonstrated an accident caused by one of Tesla’s technicians.
CPA inc. then demanded compensation from Tesla Motors for two heads of loss: first, 2 000 $ for stress, trouble and inconvenience allegedly suffered because the company had to investigate the origin of the damage and because its shareholder experienced sleep disturbances; and second, reimbursement of the 136.82 $ cost of the camera-analysis software, which had been purchased specifically to identify the origin of the damage.

Procedural posture and positions of the parties
The matter was brought before the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec. CPA inc., as plaintiff, claimed a total of 2 150 $ in damages, representing 2 000 $ for stress, trouble and inconvenience and 136.82 $ for the software purchase, alleging that Tesla Motors’ technician had caused the damage and that Tesla Motors had failed to disclose it promptly.
Tesla Motors, as defendant, raised two main arguments. First, it claimed that the amounts sought, particularly the 2 000 $ for stress and inconvenience, were grossly exaggerated. Second, it relied on a limitation of liability clause contained in the vehicle manufacturer’s conventional warranty, arguing that under this warranty it could not be required to pay the damages claimed by CPA inc. Tesla’s position was that any liability was governed and limited by the warranty terms, and that no additional damages beyond repairs were recoverable.

Analysis of the legal framework and classification of the claim
The Court rejected Tesla Motors’ attempt to frame the dispute as a matter governed solely by the vehicle’s conventional warranty. Tesla relied specifically on the new vehicle limited warranty for North America and an exclusion of liability clause embedded in that warranty, arguing that this shielded it from paying damages claimed beyond repairs. The judge held that this approach was misguided, because the plaintiff’s claim did not concern the implementation or performance of the warranty itself. Instead, the claim was grounded in general civil liability—responsabilité civile—in connection with damage caused during repair work and the failure to disclose that damage.
The Court characterized CPA inc.’s action as one based on the ordinary rules of civil liability under Québec law. To succeed, CPA inc. had to establish three elements: a fault committed by Tesla Motors (through its technician), a compensable prejudice, and a causal link between the fault and the alleged prejudice. Tesla Motors, as an employer, could be held liable for the fault of its employee in the performance of his duties under article 1463 of the Civil Code of Québec, which provides that the principal is bound to make reparation for the injury caused by his subordinates in the performance of their duties. Therefore, the central legal questions were whether the technician had committed a fault by damaging the vehicle and failing to disclose the damage, whether this omission amounted to a civil fault attributable to Tesla Motors, and whether the specific heads of damage claimed by CPA inc. met the criteria for compensation.

Evidence regarding fault and the technician’s conduct
On the evidentiary front, the Court examined both the physical nature of the damage to the vehicle and the communications between Mr. Marianer and the technician. The damage to the bumper and front apron was such that the Court found it improbable that the technician would not have noticed the harm caused during his work. This assessment of probability was central to the Court’s finding of fault. The Court concluded that the technician likely realized he had damaged the vehicle but failed to inform either the owner or Tesla Motors.
The Court also took into account the steps taken by CPA inc. and Mr. Marianer to identify the source of the damage. The purchase of specialized software, the analysis of camera and detector footage, and the subsequent communication with Tesla Motors on 4 September 2024 were consistent with a diligent attempt to uncover the truth. Notably, upon being informed on 4 September 2024 of the results of this analysis, Tesla Motors reviewed its own vehicle records, concluded that the damage likely resulted from a manoeuvre by its technician, and informed CPA inc. that it would carry out the necessary repairs at its own expense. This admission effectively confirmed the causal link between the technician’s intervention and the damage.

Assessment of damages and limits on recoverable heads of loss
Having found that Tesla Motors, through the fault of its technician, had caused damage to the vehicle and failed to promptly disclose it, the Court turned to the quantification of damages. The judge held that the technician’s omission to report the damage in a timely manner led directly to CPA inc.’s need to undertake an investigation, including the purchase of the specialized software. On this basis, the Court concluded that the cost of 136.82 $ for the software was a direct and compensable loss attributable to Tesla Motors and should be reimbursed.
However, the Court drew a clear line with respect to the remaining 2 000 $ claimed for stress, trouble and inconvenience. While the evidence showed that Mr. Marianer, as shareholder, had devoted time and effort to analyzing the vehicle’s data and footage, the judge found that this did not translate into a direct financial loss for the corporation itself. Time spent and inconvenience experienced personally by a shareholder are not, without more, patrimonial losses belonging to the corporation. Similarly, alleged sleep problems or stress experienced by the shareholder could not be indemnified as corporate damage. The Court emphasized that a legal person cannot, in subjective terms, experience moral stress or anxiety in the way a natural person can. Consequently, stress as a head of damage is not generally available to a corporation in this context.
Moreover, aside from the software purchase and the investigative efforts already discussed, CPA inc. had not produced evidence of any other direct, quantifiable damages, such as additional repair costs, loss of use, or loss of revenue. Tesla Motors had already agreed to and did undertake the necessary physical repairs to the vehicle—on 9 September 2024 and again in October 2024—at its own expense. Once these repairs were performed, there was no remaining vehicle-damage loss to be compensated. In the absence of further objective evidence, the Court refused to award any additional damages.

Outcome, responsibility of Tesla Motors and monetary award
In its formal conclusions, the Court partially allowed CPA inc.’s action. It held that Tesla Motors was civilly liable for the fault of its technician in damaging the vehicle and in failing to promptly disclose that damage, and that this omission caused CPA inc. to incur the cost of the investigative software. Tesla Motors was therefore ordered to pay CPA inc. 136.82 $ in damages, representing reimbursement of the software, with interest at the legal rate and the additional indemnity provided for in article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec, calculated from 20 September 2024, the date on which the demand letter fell due. The Court also awarded CPA inc. 364 $ in court costs (frais de justice). The total fixed monetary amounts specified in the judgment therefore come to 500.82 $ (136.82 $ in damages plus 364 $ in costs), in addition to interest and the statutory additional indemnity, whose exact amounts depend on applicable legal rates and are not determinable from the judgment alone. In sum, CPA inc. is the successful party, but only in part: its claim for stress, trouble and inconvenience was rejected, while it obtained reimbursement of the software cost and its court costs against Tesla Motors.