So in summary, while Top Gear was correct in saying it had a 55 mile range with the way they were driving it on their race track, they falsely claimed that the car ran out of charge and had to be pushed into a garage. Instead they just turned off the car and pushed it into a garage.
But the judge said that this is the kind of thing you expect from Top Gear as an entertainment show and it was ok to say it ran out of charge?
If I remember correctly, Top Gear did not say the roadster ran out of batteries and had to be pushed. Rather, they said if it ran out of batteries, you may have to push it, and demonstrated with the car turned off. This looks bad, but isn't technically libel.
> Except that, you know, gas is everywhere and a tank lasts more than a hundred miles.
Not accurate on both counts.
1. If I drive East West or North from my house right now on major national highways, I won't find a gas station for many hundreds of KMs in any direction.
Well, a claim can't be libelous if it's true, regardless of how entertainingly it is presented. I didn't mean to re-litigate the case. You can read what the judge actually wrote here: http://www.onebrickcourt.com/files/cases/tesla_73294.pdf The more interesting bits are towards the bottom.
But the judge said that this is the kind of thing you expect from Top Gear as an entertainment show and it was ok to say it ran out of charge?