That’s ridiculous, but I think the title makes it sound a lot more ridiculous than it actually is.
[the lawsuit] also named several private property management companies allegedly responsible for the bridge and adjoining land.
If he could just drive off a collapsed bridge without any warnings someone has clearly not taken their responsibility.
If there’s a lack of signage and road blocks, and the map says the road is fine, I can see how one would make such an error.
I don’t agree google maps should be held accountable here, but if this bridge has been collapsed for a decade, I can see why someone would want to at least pose the question.
I would agree, however if this statement from the article can be proven:
The lawsuit adds that Google had previously been notified about the collapse and several attempts had been made for the route information to be updated.
Then there might be an argument that Google was negligent in not updating it’s maps. I’d agree that it’s a weak argument and that the Terms of Service likely contains a clause like “you are responsible to watch out for road conditions”. But, if the bridge has been out for a decade and multiple attempts to update Google about the collapsed bridge had been made, that may rise to the level of negligence.
Keep in mind it’s not an all or nothing thing, they’ll assign percentages of fault. It’s also important that they name name basically anybody involved because the others will try to blame Google to shift fault off of themselves.
Effectively you want to name everybody possible so that they all fight it out.
I am with you 100%. Expecting Google to be responsible for road maintenance is a frivolous. Google will sue them for legal costs.
This is what I was thinking, suing Google sounds like a cash grab as there’s government agencies and possibly private land owners responsible for putting up barriers and signs warning the bridge is out. Google maps is useful, but you still have to use some sense rather than blindly following it, heck, I’ve run into cases where it can’t figure out how to get to a street (that actually happened yesterday).
All signs and barriers kept getting moved/stolen.
If the bridge was no longer there why wasn’t there massive unmovable concrete barriers in the road?
I was as baffled as you are, until I law the location it happened.
Well, could you link it? What about the location makes it obvious that they didn’t plate unmovable concrete barriers?
The article just says there were no barriers placed. There were no pictures but it mentions Snow Creek Lake in North carolina as the location if you want to map it on google.
I don’t get any results for Snow Creek Lake NC. There’s a Snow Creek township but it doesn’t have any lakes I can see
Ok the first paragraph says
Snow Creek in Hickory, North Carolina
other sources lead me to it https://maps.app.goo.gl/zJNzNtordE6YrbJn8
Unless they fixed the bridge since this incident it still says you can use this road…
https://maps.app.goo.gl/zJNzNtordE6YrbJn8
photo from Sky NewsThe OP already linked an article which tells you
The article doesn’t have pictures or mention why there were no barriers, which I think this person is asking.
Ohhhhhhhhhh, my bad. Think I need another coffee!
deleted by creator
I have read because it was a private road, they are legally not allowed to place an unmovable object
I wonder if a HOA owns the land
Don’t get tricked by big media the way they did with the McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit.
Google was notified for a decade that they had a dangerous route listed. Safety standards aren’t made for people acting perfectly, they’re made for having multiple layers of safety for things that can kill or maime you.
Yes, there is SOME level of personal responsibility, but if Google told 100,000 people to do something dangerous, it’s inevitable that someone would have a combination of factors that caused someone to do it and die.
Google just claims over and over that it’s too big and has too much data to be able to have any sort of customer service or maintenance, and this is the result.
Yes, other people are also responsible, but that’s what the legal system is for, to look at evidence and not headlines and place blame. I wouldn’t be surprised if Google settles out of court on this one and promises to fix their maps.
Google just claims over and over that it’s too big and has too much data
“ok, google. how many pieces should you be sliced into in order to rectify this?”
Well their name ain’t Google no more.
Let’s start with 26 slices.
Maps have been around for thousands of years and have always been unreliable. You’d think the legal principles involved would be well explored by now.
This kind of thing is why I hate Google Maps. There is no way to ensure that edits are carried out based on your local knowledge, whereas with OpenStreetMap you can just go make the changes that need to be made. It’s been very satisfying for me to go contribute to OpenStreetMap when I see that paths are added or changed, so that the map reflects reality. Meanwhile Google Maps won’t even move an entire park that is in the wrong place.
Citations Needed podcast did an episode about “frivolous” lawsuits where they talked about the McD coffee lawsuit too: https://soundcloud.com/citationsneeded/episode-107-pop-torts-and-the-ready-made-virality-of-frivolous-lawsuit-stories
It’s great that people are getting educated on things like this.
Legal Eagle also did a similar episode - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_jaU5V9FUg
What did bid media told public about got coffee lawsuit?
It’s commonly used as an example of a frivolous lawsuit, because everyone knows coffee is hot right? Of course coffee can burn you.
The issue is that this particular coffee was negligently hot, so hot that the victim had third-degree burns on her privates. Also, the victim originally only sought coverage for medical expenses, but instead McD went to court and had to pay out a much larger amount.
Anyone who thinks this lawsuit was frivolous, try to find some of the pictures of her burns.
When I’m driving, I like to check there is a nice bit of asphalt ahead of me.
If I don’t see no road, I might press the brakes and take a moment to reflect on things.
This is doubly true in a bridge.
Sorry but Darwin applies here.
I fully agree. I also hate Google and will look for any reason to hate on them more, however in this context they aren’t at fault. You’re the one driving and operating the machine. The app is literally “guidance”. It didn’t order him to drive over the bridge 🤣
If I were the headline writer it’d be “Dead Man Sues Map For Not Being Territory”
RIP Alan Tudyk
