The parents of a college student killed in a single-vehicle crash have filed a wrongful-death lawsuit accusing Tesla of a design defect that they say trapped their daughter in the wreckage as the car ignited. According to the complaint, which the parents’ attorneys filed this week, the vehicle’s electronic door and window systems failed after the impact and emergency responders were unable to open the doors quickly enough to reach the occupant before the fire spread.

The filing contends that the car’s “post-crash electrical behavior” created a hazard that effectively sealed the cabin. The parents seek compensatory and punitive damages and are asking a court to require Tesla to make design changes that would allow occupants to escape or rescuers to gain access more easily after a crash.

The lawsuit arrives amid sustained scrutiny of Tesla vehicles and their safety systems. Federal regulators have investigated Tesla’s Autopilot driver-assist system and multiple crashes involving Teslas have prompted inquiries into battery fires, escapeability and crashworthiness. Tesla maintains that its vehicles meet regulatory standards and that occupants and drivers must remain attentive and prepared to intervene while using driver-assistance features.

Tesla did not respond to a detailed request for comment on the lawsuit by deadline. Company spokespeople in prior cases have expressed condolences to families while stressing the rarity of battery fires and the general safety record of Tesla electric vehicles.

Experts say the case raises two separate but related safety questions: the risk of lithium-ion battery fires and the ability of occupants to exit or be extricated quickly after a collision. “Lithium-ion chemistry can generate very hot, persistent fires that are different from gasoline fires, and that can complicate rescue operations,” said an independent automotive-safety consultant who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss multiple ongoing investigations. “Separately, electrical systems that disable manual egress or rely on power to operate once the vehicle has been compromised can create life-threatening delays.”

The complaint cites that brief window between collision and the rapid spread of fire, arguing that design choices governing door latches, window power and electrical architecture contributed to the fatal outcome. It follows a string of civil suits brought against Tesla by drivers and families alleging malfunctioning safety systems, delayed emergency resets and inadequate warnings about potential post-crash electrical failures.

For regulators, the case underscores the practical and policy challenges posed by the wider adoption of electric vehicles and advanced driver-assistance technologies. Lawmakers and safety advocates have been calling for clearer standards governing how EVs should behave electrically after severe impacts and for improved requirements ensuring manual egress remains possible even when power systems are compromised.

The parents’ attorneys say the family’s aim is twofold: to secure accountability for their daughter’s death and to force industry-wide changes that will prevent similar tragedies. “No family should have to choose between being trapped or suffering further harm because of a vehicle’s design,” the complaint states.

As the litigation proceeds, the suit may force renewed examination of how automakers design electrical systems, door hardware and emergency protocols — and whether regulators need to tighten rules to match the realities of modern vehicle technology.