While it's not great that Google failed to update their map in 3 years, I'm not sure that it's reasonable to sue Google here? I don't know what weather or other conditions Paxton was driving...
Exemplary
While it's not great that Google failed to update their map in 3 years, I'm not sure that it's reasonable to sue Google here?
I don't know what weather or other conditions Paxton was driving under, but I feel it's generally reasonable to expect drivers to be responsible for their own safety. It's a little uncharitable, and probably the situation wasn't quite as clear-cut, but I'm reminded of Michael Scott driving into a lake.
If anyone is responsible, it's the constructor's company, or whoever is holding the maintenance liability (since the constructor has dissolved). That's probably the transport authority in the area.
Overall I'm getting the vibe that this is an opportunistic lawsuit aiming to squeeze a settlement out of Google, just because they're "rich", which I don't think is a very ethical thing to do.
Hypothetical scenarios to consider:
A bridge collapsed X minutes/days/years ago. Someone reported it Y (time units) afterwards. Google Maps directed someone there and they died. For what (X,Y) is Google responsible? When was this responsibility communicated or undertaken?
Google Maps includes a collapsed bridge, and a person manually plans a route (without looking at Google Maps' suggested route) which uses the bridge. They die. Is Google responsible?
A friend drafts out a route for someone, leading over the bridge, which that someone follows. Is the friend responsible?
Someone accidentally or maliciously reports a bridge as collapsed, when it is fine. Google redirects traffic, or shows a warning which some people heed, and unnecessarily adds X minutes of travel time to Y number of people's commutes. Some people miss their flights or whatever, and they sue. Is Google responsible?
Google directs someone to a webpage where the user gets a virus, or gets scammed, or whatever. To what extent is Google responsible?
From the image, the collapsed bridge is not quite as obvious as Michael Scott's lake, but unless there was heavy fog or it was late at night, it seems reasonably easy to avoid. But even if there are visual impediments, isn't it the driver's responsibility to drive at a speed which is safe for the road conditions?
Also:
There are X number of bridges worldwide in Maps, of which Y are collapsed. Google employs Z people. Given (X, Y, Z), what probability P of correctly identifying the collapsed bridges do we expect?
What is the enumeration of characteristics of bridges/shops/locations, for which Google is liable for accurately tracking? For example, "opening times" could be a characteristic: if I book a weekend trip to an attraction which Google says is open but which turns out to be closed, can I sue for the cost of my flight?
Suppose that somewhere in Google's terms of service, it says "use at own risk" (I have not checked). Or it is a popup when you open Maps. How much responsibility does this absolve?
edit 2:
I've since updated my beliefs due to some comments:
@boxer_dogs_dance and @sparksbet pointed out that several other parties are actually listed in the lawsuit, including the ones which are clearly more liable for this accident. I'm annoyed because most news coverage seemed to focus very disproportionately on discussing Google's involvement, due to what I can only assume is sensationalism. Most of my original emotional response was because the level of blame implied by the amount of coverage was drastically different from my own judgement of the situation. But in reality the level of blame seems like it will be allocated reasonably, which I'm okay with.
@skybrian pointed out that setting the precedent that Google is partially responsible may lead to incremental safety improvements in the future, and that this is how workplace safety regulations were historically established.
@papasquat: If I write map software for a trail, then lose interest and stop maintaining it, and someone walks off a cliff, should I be somehow held liable for that? [...] If so, that creates a chilling effect [...]
I think what @papasquat mentioned is the other big source of my emotional discomfort. It seems similar to the reason behind Good Samaritan laws. If providing a mostly-free service creates liability, that would discourage such services, which is sad.
I continue to disagree that it's reasonable to extract money out of Google because they are a "large corporation". Their profit in 2022 was about $15 per user (on revenue of about $75). Their pockets are simply not that deep relative to the number of people who might think to make claims against them. Compare this to the average of $15000 in tax revenue per capita in the USA.
100% From the article: “…there were no barriers or warning signs along the washed-out roadway. He had driven off an unguarded edge…” No signage, barriers or guards. That seems like the real...
100%
From the article: “…there were no barriers or warning signs along the washed-out roadway. He had driven off an unguarded edge…”
No signage, barriers or guards. That seems like the real problem here.
This seems to be the most reasonable take. A driver choosing this road using a physical map would've also gone over the edge. The largest issue with Google is that they didn't update it after the...
This seems to be the most reasonable take.
A driver choosing this road using a physical map would've also gone over the edge. The largest issue with Google is that they didn't update it after the requests, not that they sent someone over a bridge.
The fact it hadn't been marked by a construction company or whomever is repairing that bridge seems to be the biggest problem and they would most likely be the primary liable party.
From the Sky News article someone posted above: So it looks like one of those "sue everyone potentially liable and let the law sort it out" suits.
From the Sky News article someone posted above:
The North Carolina State Patrol had said the bridge was not maintained by local or state officials, and the original developer's company had dissolved. The lawsuit names several private property management companies that it claims are responsible for the bridge and the adjoining land.
So it looks like one of those "sue everyone potentially liable and let the law sort it out" suits.
The lawsuit includes other parties besides Google. However, if Google is talking to me through my phone saying turn here, take that road, I want to believe that Google makes a reasonable effort to...
The lawsuit includes other parties besides Google. However, if Google is talking to me through my phone saying turn here, take that road, I want to believe that Google makes a reasonable effort to check and verify reports of road hazards like a missing bridge. Court precedent is going to establish what is reasonable as it does for other industries.
People are used to Google providing reliable information of transient conditions like heavy traffic. An ongoing static issue like a collapsed bridge seems reasonable and easy to verify within a time period of being warned years prior.
Google Maps used to point my address to an overgrown laneway behind the house with no access to the property. I requested a correction (to, you know, the street address?) and it took around two...
Google Maps used to point my address to an overgrown laneway behind the house with no access to the property. I requested a correction (to, you know, the street address?) and it took around two months to be actioned. I thought that was bad enough, but the only consequence was I had to give directions to a few Uber drivers in that time.
I can imagine there's a more rigorous review process for data updates to a public road than a single home. But years?
When I ask directions to my sister's condo, Google maps has for the past 2 years directed me to drive through the private parking lots of 2 other condo complexes which don't actually connect to...
When I ask directions to my sister's condo, Google maps has for the past 2 years directed me to drive through the private parking lots of 2 other condo complexes which don't actually connect to the parking lot of the sister's condo. I've requested correction and it hasn't been changed yet. :(
I think in cases like this, it’s more helpful to focus on the precedent this will set rather than this exact case. Like, sure, google is a massive company with a ton of resources and they have the...
I think in cases like this, it’s more helpful to focus on the precedent this will set rather than this exact case. Like, sure, google is a massive company with a ton of resources and they have the ability to constantly get the entire world for collapsed bridges. Is it reasonable though, to hold map makers liable for accidents resulting in changing conditions for roads though?
If my small open source map mapping project did the same thing, should I be sued? If not, on what grounds am I different than google?
These are the kind of questions judges resolve all of the time. Generally judges are pretty corporate friendly but they also work to set reasonable standards of responsibility for the safety of a...
These are the kind of questions judges resolve all of the time. Generally judges are pretty corporate friendly but they also work to set reasonable standards of responsibility for the safety of a product.
It matters whether Google knew or reasonably should have known and for how long without fixing the problem. If the problem existed for nine years, that is a long time to go without changing your directions to avoid the hazard.
Sure, but that then sets legal precedent for the onus being on a map maker to inform a user of that map of all kinds of dangers. If I write map software for a trail, then lose interest and stop...
Sure, but that then sets legal precedent for the onus being on a map maker to inform a user of that map of all kinds of dangers. If I write map software for a trail, then lose interest and stop maintaining it, and someone walks off a cliff, should I be somehow held liable for that?
If so, that creates a chilling effect for anyone but the largest corporations with tons of resources to dedicate to keeping every tiny bit of data up to date on map software.
Should maps be kept up to date? Yeah, but the people who make them shouldn't be responsible that they don't accurately reflect reality unless that's something that the map maker has guaranteed.
Should a mapmaker be liable if they're warned multiple times that there's a potentially dangerous error on one of their maps and they refuse to correct it over the course of years despite being...
Yeah, but the people who make them shouldn't be responsible that they don't accurately reflect reality unless that's something that the map maker has guaranteed.
Should a mapmaker be liable if they're warned multiple times that there's a potentially dangerous error on one of their maps and they refuse to correct it over the course of years despite being able to, though? That's far closer to the actually situation here.
The accusation here is negligence -- that they failed to exercise the level of care that a reasonable person would under these circumstances. One aspect of negligence is typically whether the harm that resulted from the defendant's actions was foreseeable -- this is one of the factors that weighs must strongly against Google in this case if the information we have is accurate. The fact that they were warned multiple times about the potential danger of this map error makes it far more likely that a judge or jury will deem the harm here foreseeable.
This isn't really getting much into new legal territory on this front afaik. I don't think there's much potential for big legal precedent at all, but rather an assessment of how well Google's behavior here fits the existing well-established factors of negligence. In your trail example, you'd be unlikely to be considered negligent for not maintaining the software because it's likely not foreseeable for you that failure to update your map will cause harm. If someone warned you it's wrong in a potentially dangerous way and you don't at minimum mark it as out of date though... that changes the foreseeability equation.
I don't know. this mapmaker can have thousands of requests to grok through and verify, so I don't know what is "reasonable" in this case. It really depends on a lot of details we don't have access to.
Should a mapmaker be liable if they're warned multiple times that there's a potentially dangerous error on one of their maps and they refuse to correct it over the course of years despite being able to, though?
I don't know. this mapmaker can have thousands of requests to grok through and verify, so I don't know what is "reasonable" in this case. It really depends on a lot of details we don't have access to.
I absolutely understand this perspective! Luckily the judge/jury will get access to a lot more details than we currently have if this case proceeds past discovery. My point is more that it's not...
I absolutely understand this perspective! Luckily the judge/jury will get access to a lot more details than we currently have if this case proceeds past discovery. My point is more that it's not definitely unreasonable for them to have some liability, but you're right that their actual liability depends on a lot of information we can only speculate about.
I mean... if someone dies because you lied about how up-to-date your map is, I think you would and should be held liable, especially if you actively maintain the software and you've been contacted...
I mean... if someone dies because you lied about how up-to-date your map is, I think you would and should be held liable, especially if you actively maintain the software and you've been contacted about a dangerous trail multiple times over the course of ten years. It really isn't that burdensome to tell users that your trail mapping software hasn't been updated in ten years.
Part of the problem here is that google maps is generally understood to be up to date, even as far as tracking traffic in real time. Not removing a known dangerous trail in an actively updated and widely trusted hiking map service would make you liable if someone falls to their death following it.
Does Google specifically lie to their users in this case? I'm not objecting to the generally held assumption, because that's what matters here in terms of real negligence, but this isn't an...
Does Google specifically lie to their users in this case? I'm not objecting to the generally held assumption, because that's what matters here in terms of real negligence, but this isn't an instance of fraud.
Every legal case raises issues like that. It is up to judges and juries to interpret the law and the case law and try to keep society predictable, stable, allow businesses and individuals to have...
Every legal case raises issues like that. It is up to judges and juries to interpret the law and the case law and try to keep society predictable, stable, allow businesses and individuals to have a good sense of what their risks are and might be.
You are asserting the needs of the party on one side of the issue. The law has a long history of assessing damage and who is liable for what. I'm confident that the judge and possibly the appeals court will resolve it in a way that makes sense.
These days, I'm not so sure. And judges historically haven't had the best understanding of tech. I don't think this should set some large precedence, but there can be room based on private details...
I'm confident that the judge and possibly the appeals court will resolve it in a way that makes sense.
These days, I'm not so sure. And judges historically haven't had the best understanding of tech.
I don't think this should set some large precedence, but there can be room based on private details to subpeona on if Google was negligent.
I feel similarly. At risk of sounding like a Boomer, is it that hard to clock a collapsed bridge? You shouldn't be glued to your navigation app when you drive. It's a guide. And really, someone in...
I feel similarly. At risk of sounding like a Boomer, is it that hard to clock a collapsed bridge? You shouldn't be glued to your navigation app when you drive. It's a guide.
And really, someone in the state should have stepped in. You have a dangerous obstacle that is injuring citizens repeatedly and has now finally killed someone.
I've dealt with washed out roadways more times than I'm happy to and some of them sneak up on you. You don't often think about the distances you're covering sometimes and sometimes you're looking...
At risk of sounding like a Boomer, is it that hard to clock a collapsed bridge?
I've dealt with washed out roadways more times than I'm happy to and some of them sneak up on you. You don't often think about the distances you're covering sometimes and sometimes you're looking beyond the collapse. In this case, I could see being fixated on what looks like the tree in the road on that picture and not even noticing the giant hole, depending on the angle...
That said, if there's a tree in the road what are you doing driving that close?! I would've hopefully stopped much farther back.
Having seen the images of the missing bridge, it looks like maybe a 12-15 foot span. The bridge was one of those simple ones they pave over so you don't even realize it's a bridge. At 11pm (time...
Having seen the images of the missing bridge, it looks like maybe a 12-15 foot span. The bridge was one of those simple ones they pave over so you don't even realize it's a bridge. At 11pm (time of crash) I can see how someone would miss the gap in the road.
It is seriously disturbing to me just how many people want to put the blame on the driver in this case. It shows that most have probably never been in a serious and sudden situation, especially in...
It is seriously disturbing to me just how many people want to put the blame on the driver in this case. It shows that most have probably never been in a serious and sudden situation, especially in bad weather or at night. A huge % of avoided accidents are because you can see the obstacle coming, but a sudden and out of no where obstacle you're not expecting ups the chances of an accident tremendously just due to the speeds you're usually traveling at.
I think the reason for that is because of this being related to a lawsuit. In this situation, yeah, I don’t necessarily think the driver was maliciously trying to drive off of a bridge, but people...
I think the reason for that is because of this being related to a lawsuit. In this situation, yeah, I don’t necessarily think the driver was maliciously trying to drive off of a bridge, but people feel the need to lay blame on either the driver or Google
And in my experiences, a lot of people are very apologetic to Google as well, for some strange reason. I’m not sure if that’s an influencing factor in this situation of blaming the driver, but some thing I’ve noticed nonetheless.
not in my experience. But people in more technical communities are more biased towards not holding tech responsible for human error. It's yet another situation on how much of a blame is placed on...
a lot of people are very apologetic to Google as well, for some strange reason.
not in my experience. But people in more technical communities are more biased towards not holding tech responsible for human error. It's yet another situation on how much of a blame is placed on the victim, the business, or chalked up to a freak accident.
That's fair. I hadn't realized the accident was so late at night (thanks reading comprehension). I guess he just wasn't a local. Feel like it needs to be the state's responsibility to take care of...
That's fair. I hadn't realized the accident was so late at night (thanks reading comprehension). I guess he just wasn't a local. Feel like it needs to be the state's responsibility to take care of problems like these. Privately constructed and owned bridges on public roadways seem like a very poor idea, especially when they become orphaned.
I'm honestly surprised the locals didn't do anything about it. Where I live, locals put up handmade signs (or even spray paint the road directly) to warn drivers about pot holes and the like. I...
I guess he just wasn't a local.
I'm honestly surprised the locals didn't do anything about it. Where I live, locals put up handmade signs (or even spray paint the road directly) to warn drivers about pot holes and the like. I feel like if this bridge existed here, someone would have run a rope across it.
The article states there were no barriers or signs and that the bridge had been collapsed for "years".
If anyone is responsible, it's the constructor's company, or whoever is holding the maintenance liability (since the constructor has dissolved). That's probably the transport authority in the area.
The article states there were no barriers or signs and that the bridge had been collapsed for "years".
there were no barriers or warning signs along the washed-out roadway.
It's typical of lawsuits to sue everyone that can be remotely responsible and let the court decide which one sticks. They're also suing two other companies and one individual as the "Bridge...
It's typical of lawsuits to sue everyone that can be remotely responsible and let the court decide which one sticks. They're also suing two other companies and one individual as the "Bridge Defendents" they deem responsible for maintaining, repairing, and erecting barricades/warning signs on the bridge.
Honestly, I think Google will likely be dismissed from the case as, pardon the parlance, if your friends told you to jump of a bridge no reasonable person would say it's their fault for you doing so.
The answer to basically every example is “when did they know it was collapsed” Yes. If I know a bridge is collapsed and plan a route for someone that sends them off, I could be partially liable....
The answer to basically every example is “when did they know it was collapsed”
Yes. If I know a bridge is collapsed and plan a route for someone that sends them off, I could be partially liable.
The whole reason this conversation is occurring is because Google was notified multiple times.
The only X that matters is “were you told and how many times?”
And how long did you wait before responding to the warning. Being told on Monday and someone driving off the edge on Tuesday is very different from being told five years before someone drives off...
And how long did you wait before responding to the warning. Being told on Monday and someone driving off the edge on Tuesday is very different from being told five years before someone drives off the edge.
How is it victim blaming to point out that Google is not the responsible party but merely the entity that is both readily identifiable and with sufficient assets to pay a just compensation? The...
How is it victim blaming to point out that Google is not the responsible party but merely the entity that is both readily identifiable and with sufficient assets to pay a just compensation? The actual negligent parties seem either hard to find or are judgement proof.
A court is going to resolve the question of how much responsibility Google has for giving directions that are not deadly, and under what circumstances of reasonable action. There are frequently...
A court is going to resolve the question of how much responsibility Google has for giving directions that are not deadly, and under what circumstances of reasonable action.
There are frequently injury cases with multiple responsible parties. Distributing damages is not a new legal issue.
Google was negligent in not updating the map after multiple people pointed out that it wasn't accurate and possibly dangerous. The time period doesn't matter. They knew it was potentially...
Google was negligent in not updating the map after multiple people pointed out that it wasn't accurate and possibly dangerous. The time period doesn't matter. They knew it was potentially dangerous and did nothing.
You're most likely right that it's an opportunistic lawsuit, but you can't really believe that Google should share none of the blame?
I think your point would be valid if this was a self driving car or similar. Likewise, if the collapsed bridge lacked signage indicating that it was closed, some responsibility would fall on the...
I think your point would be valid if this was a self driving car or similar. Likewise, if the collapsed bridge lacked signage indicating that it was closed, some responsibility would fall on the DOT or similar organization that's responsible for road maintenance and signage.
If you're driving a car, ultimately you are responsible for doing that in a safe manner. No mapmaker or GPS company is responsible for a driver's decision to drive into a wall, the wrong way up a one-way street, or off a closed bridge.
I believe Google is negligent for the person getting lost. Google Map's job is to give you driving directions. They gave them poorly, and the person was lost. If Google is liable for damage, it is...
I believe Google is negligent for the person getting lost. Google Map's job is to give you driving directions. They gave them poorly, and the person was lost. If Google is liable for damage, it is damage in correspondence with them being lost (which would not be very much).
In terms of driving off a bridge, that's a mixture of the driver's fault and the local government's fault, depending on the situation. The minutia of driving is the responsibility of the driver and the state of infrastructure is the responsibility of the local government.
We don't know when/if the victim turned on GPS, where they were heading, and if that was the best or only route to get to their destination. It's hard to determine how much fault Google is for...
Google Map's job is to give you driving directions. They gave them poorly, and the person was lost.
We don't know when/if the victim turned on GPS, where they were heading, and if that was the best or only route to get to their destination. It's hard to determine how much fault Google is for "getting lost".
I would guess that the courts won’t decide that Google has primary responsibility for this accident. However, on general principles, I do think bad turn-by-turn directions are arguably...
I would guess that the courts won’t decide that Google has primary responsibility for this accident. However, on general principles, I do think bad turn-by-turn directions are arguably safety-related and occasionally paying damages will encourage improvements, probably without affecting Google’s bottom line that much, since cases like this one are rare.
Improvements in US construction safety were due to a multitude of factors, and part of a much broader trend of improving workplace safety that took place over the 20th century.
The most significant early step was the passage of workers compensation laws, which compensated workers in the event of an injury, increasing the costs to employers if workers were injured (Aldrich 1997). Prior to workers comp laws, a worker or his family would have to sue his employer for damages and prove negligence in the event of an injury or death. Wisconsin passed the first state workers comp law in 1911, and by 1921 most states had workers compensation programs.
The subsequent rising costs of worker injuries and deaths caused employers to focus more on workplace safety. According to Mark Aldrich, historian and former OSHA economist, “Companies began to guard machines and power sources while machinery makers developed safer designs. Managers began to look for hidden dangers at work, and to require that workers wear hard hats and safety glasses.” Associations and trade journals for safety engineering, such as the American Society of Safety Professionals, began to appear.
I don’t doubt that a lot of workspace accidents were and are caused by workers doing dumb things, but blaming them directly wasn’t the way to go. To improve a system, systemic changes are needed.
Similarly, I think if large private companies end up “owning” transportation safety (like they do in the airline industry, with government leadership) then safety will improve and that’s probably for the best. Driverless taxi services seem like the most likely way to get big safety improvements.
Currently, responsibility is distributed among billions of drivers and that makes systemic change hard. But car manufacturers often play a leading role (sometimes after being forced into it) and better directions could help a bit too.
Workplace fatalities used to be a lot more common. https://www.resetsanfrancisco.org/faq/how-many-people-died-during-the-construction-of-the-golden-gate-bridge/...
Workplace fatalities used to be a lot more common.
This might be the case if they were JUST suing Google, but based on the excessive amount of Attorney Tom I've watched, it's actually extremely normal to sue literally any entity that could...
Overall I'm getting the vibe that this is an opportunistic lawsuit aiming to squeeze a settlement out of Google, just because they're "rich", which I don't think is a very ethical thing to do.
This might be the case if they were JUST suing Google, but based on the excessive amount of Attorney Tom I've watched, it's actually extremely normal to sue literally any entity that could possibly have contributed to a catastrophic injury within this area of law. It avoids one party insisting that the whole thing was the fault of someone else who happens to not be here bc they're not being sued. If you sue everyone they could possibly blame, it makes that strategy impossible because they're also there arguing why it's not their fault. Their evidence against each other can presumably be used to strengthen the plaintiff's case in many situations and make it more likely they recover something from at least one of them.
In the end afaik they assign percentages of blame to various parties (including the person who was injured or killed) and that informs the monetary damages. So if they determine Google maps is 5% responsible but the people who didn't install signs are 50% responsible and the plaintiff is 45% responsible, that'll be reflected in the actual amount each party pays (or doesn't pay) in the end.
If anything, the fact that Google has deep pockets makes this more ethical, since they have more than enough money to survive defending the lawsuit (and I assume their own in-house legal team). They're extremely unlikely to actually be harmed much by this the way someone with less resources would.
only in a financial POV. I see it more from a pragmatic spirit of the law where it feels unethical to point fingers at vaugely related parties. Jeep also has deep pockets but it'd be more absurd...
If anything, the fact that Google has deep pockets makes this more ethical, since they have more than enough money to survive defending the lawsuit
only in a financial POV. I see it more from a pragmatic spirit of the law where it feels unethical to point fingers at vaugely related parties. Jeep also has deep pockets but it'd be more absurd to sue them over this. No car promises to survive careening off a bridge.
I think having a financial lens is important because it’s inescapable. I’d love for the courts system to be based on justice sans money, but that’s just not how it is.
I think having a financial lens is important because it’s inescapable. I’d love for the courts system to be based on justice sans money, but that’s just not how it is.
If it applied the other way and protected private lower/middle citizens from having the book thrown at them over legal trolling, maybe. But we know there is such thing as outspending your...
having a financial lens is important because it’s inescapable
If it applied the other way and protected private lower/middle citizens from having the book thrown at them over legal trolling, maybe. But we know there is such thing as outspending your accusations. As is, it feels more consistent to not take financials into account.
I think what we currently know of Google's behavior here makes it plausible enough for them ti have some liability that it's perfectly ethical (and pragmatic) to sue them in this case regardless.
I think what we currently know of Google's behavior here makes it plausible enough for them ti have some liability that it's perfectly ethical (and pragmatic) to sue them in this case regardless.
If it is dark and foggy out and you expect there to be a road there... how slow do you have to go to be able to stop in time when there is no warnings or anything and the road just stops being...
If it is dark and foggy out and you expect there to be a road there... how slow do you have to go to be able to stop in time when there is no warnings or anything and the road just stops being there?
Honestly, unless it was broad daylight, I'm at least blaming the fact htere was no markings to alert some one the road was gone and google had plenty of time to fix their routing too (this wasn't like the bridge just washed out and they even had several people mention it to them). I would say Google isn't the main problem here rather than the road not being marked... but I'm not feeling too sorry for them when the bridge ahd been like that for 9 years and they even had several people warn them plenty of time before this incident.
In the case in this story, I'm not feeling so charitable to google or whoeever is responsible for marking the road (the state at least should have done something). And my first reaction when reading the headline was that people need to pay more attention to where they are driving.
But given what the article states about how the road was I can reasonably see a scenario where some one could be surprised enough (and still be paying attention to their driving) and not have time to stop. ANd it not be because they were going too fast.
All of the questions you raise are the sort of things that courts try to resolve and answer. Generally US courts have been pretty friendly to corporations. However, warning use at own risk in...
All of the questions you raise are the sort of things that courts try to resolve and answer. Generally US courts have been pretty friendly to corporations. However, warning use at own risk in particular has been limited in the US in circumstances where courts find it an unreasonable way to escape basic levels of responsibility for your product.
That makes sense. Thanks for your comment here and your other comments. I'm not a lawyer so the colour you've provided from your legal background is interesting and useful.
That makes sense. Thanks for your comment here and your other comments. I'm not a lawyer so the colour you've provided from your legal background is interesting and useful.
From the article, it seems as if the road was an "unassumed road". I'm not sure if that nomenclature is generally applicable, but in my area, an unassumed road is a road that is on private...
From the article, it seems as if the road was an "unassumed road". I'm not sure if that nomenclature is generally applicable, but in my area, an unassumed road is a road that is on private property that is not publically maintained by the government.
In a case such as this, I would want for whatever app that I am using for navigation to not direct me over an unassumed road, and I think that it is a reasonable position to believe that your GPS isn't going to take you over private, unmaintained routes where the driver assumes the risk. I would be similarly alarmed if GPS directed me through any private property.
I don't think this is just a cash grab; it seems as if the GPS did something unexpected and unreasonable, and this is something that should be fixed.
As someone not in tech but who uses Google navigation frequently, it seems like adding a message for warning of a private road would be something that Google could do as they update their...
As someone not in tech but who uses Google navigation frequently, it seems like adding a message for warning of a private road would be something that Google could do as they update their navigation system. Google warns of many road conditions already.
For the record, this isn't what I think either! I think my earlier comment might not have made it clear enough what I meant. My point was that because Google has a lot of money and probably a team...
I continue to disagree that it's reasonable to extract money out of Google because they are a "large corporation".
For the record, this isn't what I think either! I think my earlier comment might not have made it clear enough what I meant. My point was that because Google has a lot of money and probably a team of in-house lawyers they already pay salaries to, they aren't as negatively impacted by the process of having to defend themselves in this type of lawsuit as you or I would be. Even if they truly have zero liability, it won't be hard on them to afford the costs of being involved in the lawsuit to determine that. That's the point I was trying to make in my earlier comment.
I think it's reasonable to extract money out of Google in this case because they're probably partially liable for this incident, not just because they're a large corporation. Hopefully the other parties with somr liability also end up having to pay. But in any case sueing them like this is necessary to determine that.
I see, in that case I think we agree completely. Thanks for clarifying! I'm a big fan of Google paying up to the extent that they are liable, just that I think their liability is probably really...
I see, in that case I think we agree completely. Thanks for clarifying!
I'm a big fan of Google paying up to the extent that they are liable, just that I think their liability is probably really small (<1% if I had to guess). Certainly less than implied by the media coverage.
Off topic: @Deimos , are people notified when they are tagged in an edit to a comment, as opposed to in the original version of the comment? I couldn't find this in the docs.
Off topic: @Deimos , are people notified when they are tagged in an edit to a comment, as opposed to in the original version of the comment? I couldn't find this in the docs.
Yes, they will be. The comments get re-processed after they're edited and will generate new notifications if different users are mentioned in the edited version.
Yes, they will be. The comments get re-processed after they're edited and will generate new notifications if different users are mentioned in the edited version.
The North Carolina State Patrol had said the bridge was not maintained by local or state officials, and the original developer’s company had dissolved. The lawsuit names several private property management companies that it claims are responsible for the bridge and the adjoining land.
Multiple people had notified Google Maps about the collapse in the years leading up to Paxson’s death and had urged the company to update its route information, according to the lawsuit.
The Tuesday court filing includes email records from another Hickory resident who had used the map’s “suggest an edit” feature in September 2020 to alert the company that it was directing drivers over the collapsed bridge. A November 2020 email confirmation from Google confirms the company received her report and was reviewing the suggested change, but the lawsuit claims Google took no further actions.
This seems to be one instance of a bigger issue in which tech companies provide service worldwide but struggle to provide service or solve problems because even with large staffs, the number of...
This seems to be one instance of a bigger issue in which tech companies provide service worldwide but struggle to provide service or solve problems because even with large staffs, the number of users is massively greater and includes speakers of languages that are remote and obscure to people who speak the dominant languages. Max Fisher's book the Chaos Machine describes repeated incidents of big social media companies failing to provide content moderation when told of hateful content inciting ethnic violence in non english speaking communities around the world.
This case is interesting to me as a lawyer. Google not only provides maps, it gives directions. It tells people, turn here. follow this road etc. There are product liability standards that may apply. A person giving directions across a collapsed bridge would absolutely be held liable.
There was a news article I read about where I think it is much less likely that Google would be liable. I don't think there was even a lawsuit but I don't know. In that case the person was driving...
There was a news article I read about where I think it is much less likely that Google would be liable. I don't think there was even a lawsuit but I don't know.
In that case the person was driving in winter and turned onto a mountain road that is not cleared of snow and is also narrow without room to turn around. I don't think it is reasonable for Google to be required to keep track of that, but someone else, including judges might think differently.
I find this to be a rather strange mentality. If an atlas included such a passageway on the map, someone in such a situation may be inclined to take it. It'd be no different a situation than...
I would like to see far more accountability in these matters, even if that means a reduction in the scope of such services. I would not mind carrying an atlas. (An atlas does not tell its users which way to go—a point you made, in different words, which I think is of crucial importance here.
I find this to be a rather strange mentality. If an atlas included such a passageway on the map, someone in such a situation may be inclined to take it. It'd be no different a situation than Google telling you, the existence of the passageway on the map and you deciding to go that way should result in you driving similarly towards a destination. You have the same responsibility in either case to look at the road in front of you. However in the way you approach it, you'd soon remove 99.99% of the advantages of a technological improvement because in the .01% chance it was wrong you ended up no worse off than if you didn't have the 99.99% of technological improvements.
Having said that, I can understand that there might be some unique elements to this situation, chiefly that it's a private road/bridge and it had been down for years with multiple reports with relative easily verifiable information (there was a news report linked even). I think many people probably don't understand differences in private and public roads, myself included, and maybe it's not possible for Google to easily tell the difference either. Generally I might have the belief that all roads I'm driving on are public and there's a certain minimum standard I'd expect from that, or if they're private but open to the public the same as if they were public roads, that there would be some kind of regulations that impose the same minimum standards. Whether that should impact Google's culpability in the matter I also don't know, but it is an additional wrinkle that someone with access to more information or has more expertise is more capable of weighing in on and makes it more difficult for me to use my layman knowledge to weigh in on.
It seems that some subdivisions are the primary type of private roads that the general public would end up driving on that don't have any kind of restrictions that would impede the public from driving on them. From what I'm finding it also seems these roads may have some government co-operations, like police could possibly have authority to ticket someone for speeding or such. Again further blurring the lines of what someone might expect if they think they're on public roads and private roads. One key thing that I'm finding in the documents of the lawsuit, the location of the broken bridge is within the same housing development that the victim (not sure the appropriate/respectful term to use here) had intended to go into. Google didn't direct someone into private roads that weren't private roads the victim had chosen to go onto by choosing that destination. It could be more against Google if the origination and destination had nothing to do with this residential subdivision and Google had directed someone through there as a shortcut.
With or without Google's maps, one could easily find themselves in this situation and going over a broken bridge. In that way, there's no proof that Google even led someone down a path that they wouldn't have otherwise gone. Of course without seeing signage or determining what someone would do alternatively, such as perhaps using a paper map and what might typically be visible on such maps (such as private roads), it's hard to even come close to making any kind of determination like that. It's possible someone would choose not to go anywhere at all if they didn't have a paper map handy or couldn't see signage on the road due to poor conditions outside.
Law students spend a semester on Torts (civil liability for injury or damage) There is a lot of material to cover.
A company claiming not to be liable has as much credibility as a criminal defendant claiming not to be guillty. The judge and jury answer that question based on laws and regulations and controlling precedent.
Nah. It takes nothing to delete a road from Google. I doubt anyone actually notified them. My condo has an ally in the back and it went decades without being mapped out until I clicked the...
Nah. It takes nothing to delete a road from Google. I doubt anyone actually notified them.
My condo has an ally in the back and it went decades without being mapped out until I clicked the submission button and it was handled in a matter of two or three days.
Whether or not Google was actually notified will be determined during the discovery process of the litigation. It would be a reckless lawyer who would claim that without solid evidence, but we...
Whether or not Google was actually notified will be determined during the discovery process of the litigation. It would be a reckless lawyer who would claim that without solid evidence, but we will all find out.
I wish there was a picture of the bridge. I can imagine the scene, how a worst case scenario and a distracted driver can lead to this result. But I also find it surprising. Being able to see it...
I wish there was a picture of the bridge. I can imagine the scene, how a worst case scenario and a distracted driver can lead to this result. But I also find it surprising. Being able to see it for myself would answer a lot of questions.
“No signs, no barriers. It was dark, raining” yeah I think given this is in a wooded area and what’s left of the bridge is pretty dark and unmarked I can understand how you could mistake the lack...
“No signs, no barriers. It was dark, raining” yeah I think given this is in a wooded area and what’s left of the bridge is pretty dark and unmarked I can understand how you could mistake the lack of bridge for a simple decline.
Definitely not Google’s fault, though. It’s on private property. Sue the property owners.
I would agree with it not being google's fault if the bridge hadn't been like that for 9 years and they hadn't had several complaints (that weren't just given to them days ago) telling them their...
I would agree with it not being google's fault if the bridge hadn't been like that for 9 years and they hadn't had several complaints (that weren't just given to them days ago) telling them their routing was putting epople over a non existant bridge.
The fact that they had plenty of time to rectify this and also warniings from people (at least a year ago) that it needed fixing says I am not feeling too sorry for Google being sued in this case. Yes, the bigger onus is the fact the road isn't marked but google had plenty of time to realize that their routing was putting people in a bad situation and if some one doesn't know the road, it's dark, and not marked (all of which happened here), they are most likely not going to notice until too late the routing that they were told to go doesn't exist!
It baffles me that everyone wants this to be binary. Is it 100% google's fault? Absolutely not. Is it mostly the fault of the private property owner and the local government for not correctly...
It baffles me that everyone wants this to be binary.
Is it 100% google's fault? Absolutely not.
Is it mostly the fault of the private property owner and the local government for not correctly marking a bridge being out and allowing it to sit for so long? Yep.
Is google still liable for ignoring requests to fix the routing for years when it was potentially dangerous and killed someone? Yes.
They can all be wrong, and absolving google of wrongdoing here is such an insane stance to me.
I don't know. Since it's on private property, why is Google Maps directing someone to drive that way en route in the first place? If that was the destination, sure, but if that was just along the...
I don't know. Since it's on private property, why is Google Maps directing someone to drive that way en route in the first place? If that was the destination, sure, but if that was just along the way, it shouldn't have been allowed map data. That said, I have no idea the mechanism used to determine which road are public or private, how Google gets that data, etc.
Google has map data for all kinds of private property. And private property can have a public right of way. The municipality might say “Yes you can buy that land but if you put a through road...
Google has map data for all kinds of private property. And private property can have a public right of way. The municipality might say “Yes you can buy that land but if you put a through road there it needs to be publicly accessible”.
Even if it’s not somewhere you’re allowed to be, in the US you have some rights to safety if you’re trespassing. But maybe not in this instance and suing Google is a last ditch effort.
Here's the local story, it has a short video of the collapsed bridge. And here's the location on Google Maps. I don't know, maybe in the dark or inclement weather that could sneak up on you? To me...
Here's the local story, it has a short video of the collapsed bridge. And here's the location on Google Maps.
I don't know, maybe in the dark or inclement weather that could sneak up on you? To me it looks pretty obviously impassable but I've definitely been guilty of blindly following my gps at times...
Given how it looks intact in street view from 2012, I could understand how someone would expect a perfectly intact and functional road on this country path. On a clear and sunny day, you might see...
Given how it looks intact in street view from 2012, I could understand how someone would expect a perfectly intact and functional road on this country path. On a clear and sunny day, you might see the dip, but otherwise, it could conceivably sneak up on you.
While it's not great that Google failed to update their map in 3 years, I'm not sure that it's reasonable to sue Google here?
I don't know what weather or other conditions Paxton was driving under, but I feel it's generally reasonable to expect drivers to be responsible for their own safety. It's a little uncharitable, and probably the situation wasn't quite as clear-cut, but I'm reminded of Michael Scott driving into a lake.
If anyone is responsible, it's the constructor's company, or whoever is holding the maintenance liability (since the constructor has dissolved). That's probably the transport authority in the area.
Overall I'm getting the vibe that this is an opportunistic lawsuit aiming to squeeze a settlement out of Google, just because they're "rich", which I don't think is a very ethical thing to do.
Hypothetical scenarios to consider:
edited to add:
(an article including an image of the bridge) https://news.sky.com/story/man-dies-driving-off-collapsed-bridge-following-google-maps-family-sues-12966007
From the image, the collapsed bridge is not quite as obvious as Michael Scott's lake, but unless there was heavy fog or it was late at night, it seems reasonably easy to avoid. But even if there are visual impediments, isn't it the driver's responsibility to drive at a speed which is safe for the road conditions?
Also:
edit 2:
I've since updated my beliefs due to some comments:
@boxer_dogs_dance and @sparksbet pointed out that several other parties are actually listed in the lawsuit, including the ones which are clearly more liable for this accident. I'm annoyed because most news coverage seemed to focus very disproportionately on discussing Google's involvement, due to what I can only assume is sensationalism. Most of my original emotional response was because the level of blame implied by the amount of coverage was drastically different from my own judgement of the situation. But in reality the level of blame seems like it will be allocated reasonably, which I'm okay with.
@skybrian pointed out that setting the precedent that Google is partially responsible may lead to incremental safety improvements in the future, and that this is how workplace safety regulations were historically established.
I think what @papasquat mentioned is the other big source of my emotional discomfort. It seems similar to the reason behind Good Samaritan laws. If providing a mostly-free service creates liability, that would discourage such services, which is sad.
I continue to disagree that it's reasonable to extract money out of Google because they are a "large corporation". Their profit in 2022 was about $15 per user (on revenue of about $75). Their pockets are simply not that deep relative to the number of people who might think to make claims against them. Compare this to the average of $15000 in tax revenue per capita in the USA.
100%
From the article: “…there were no barriers or warning signs along the washed-out roadway. He had driven off an unguarded edge…”
No signage, barriers or guards. That seems like the real problem here.
While this should be the majority of the liability, it does not absolve google for ignoring repeated requests to fix this.
This seems to be the most reasonable take.
A driver choosing this road using a physical map would've also gone over the edge. The largest issue with Google is that they didn't update it after the requests, not that they sent someone over a bridge.
The fact it hadn't been marked by a construction company or whomever is repairing that bridge seems to be the biggest problem and they would most likely be the primary liable party.
From the Sky News article someone posted above:
So it looks like one of those "sue everyone potentially liable and let the law sort it out" suits.
In the bing street view you see a roadblock, but it was removed at some point.
The lawsuit includes other parties besides Google. However, if Google is talking to me through my phone saying turn here, take that road, I want to believe that Google makes a reasonable effort to check and verify reports of road hazards like a missing bridge. Court precedent is going to establish what is reasonable as it does for other industries.
People are used to Google providing reliable information of transient conditions like heavy traffic. An ongoing static issue like a collapsed bridge seems reasonable and easy to verify within a time period of being warned years prior.
Google Maps used to point my address to an overgrown laneway behind the house with no access to the property. I requested a correction (to, you know, the street address?) and it took around two months to be actioned. I thought that was bad enough, but the only consequence was I had to give directions to a few Uber drivers in that time.
I can imagine there's a more rigorous review process for data updates to a public road than a single home. But years?
When I ask directions to my sister's condo, Google maps has for the past 2 years directed me to drive through the private parking lots of 2 other condo complexes which don't actually connect to the parking lot of the sister's condo. I've requested correction and it hasn't been changed yet. :(
I think in cases like this, it’s more helpful to focus on the precedent this will set rather than this exact case. Like, sure, google is a massive company with a ton of resources and they have the ability to constantly get the entire world for collapsed bridges. Is it reasonable though, to hold map makers liable for accidents resulting in changing conditions for roads though?
If my small open source map mapping project did the same thing, should I be sued? If not, on what grounds am I different than google?
These are the kind of questions judges resolve all of the time. Generally judges are pretty corporate friendly but they also work to set reasonable standards of responsibility for the safety of a product.
It matters whether Google knew or reasonably should have known and for how long without fixing the problem. If the problem existed for nine years, that is a long time to go without changing your directions to avoid the hazard.
Sure, but that then sets legal precedent for the onus being on a map maker to inform a user of that map of all kinds of dangers. If I write map software for a trail, then lose interest and stop maintaining it, and someone walks off a cliff, should I be somehow held liable for that?
If so, that creates a chilling effect for anyone but the largest corporations with tons of resources to dedicate to keeping every tiny bit of data up to date on map software.
Should maps be kept up to date? Yeah, but the people who make them shouldn't be responsible that they don't accurately reflect reality unless that's something that the map maker has guaranteed.
Should a mapmaker be liable if they're warned multiple times that there's a potentially dangerous error on one of their maps and they refuse to correct it over the course of years despite being able to, though? That's far closer to the actually situation here.
The accusation here is negligence -- that they failed to exercise the level of care that a reasonable person would under these circumstances. One aspect of negligence is typically whether the harm that resulted from the defendant's actions was foreseeable -- this is one of the factors that weighs must strongly against Google in this case if the information we have is accurate. The fact that they were warned multiple times about the potential danger of this map error makes it far more likely that a judge or jury will deem the harm here foreseeable.
This isn't really getting much into new legal territory on this front afaik. I don't think there's much potential for big legal precedent at all, but rather an assessment of how well Google's behavior here fits the existing well-established factors of negligence. In your trail example, you'd be unlikely to be considered negligent for not maintaining the software because it's likely not foreseeable for you that failure to update your map will cause harm. If someone warned you it's wrong in a potentially dangerous way and you don't at minimum mark it as out of date though... that changes the foreseeability equation.
I don't know. this mapmaker can have thousands of requests to grok through and verify, so I don't know what is "reasonable" in this case. It really depends on a lot of details we don't have access to.
I absolutely understand this perspective! Luckily the judge/jury will get access to a lot more details than we currently have if this case proceeds past discovery. My point is more that it's not definitely unreasonable for them to have some liability, but you're right that their actual liability depends on a lot of information we can only speculate about.
I mean... if someone dies because you lied about how up-to-date your map is, I think you would and should be held liable, especially if you actively maintain the software and you've been contacted about a dangerous trail multiple times over the course of ten years. It really isn't that burdensome to tell users that your trail mapping software hasn't been updated in ten years.
Part of the problem here is that google maps is generally understood to be up to date, even as far as tracking traffic in real time. Not removing a known dangerous trail in an actively updated and widely trusted hiking map service would make you liable if someone falls to their death following it.
Does Google specifically lie to their users in this case? I'm not objecting to the generally held assumption, because that's what matters here in terms of real negligence, but this isn't an instance of fraud.
I don't think it is fraud either. Saying Google "lied" about their maps being up to date was irrational of me. I think they imply it with the phrase "©2023 Google" showing up all over their maps, but they didn't outright lie and say that they guaranteed this route is safe as of right now.
Every legal case raises issues like that. It is up to judges and juries to interpret the law and the case law and try to keep society predictable, stable, allow businesses and individuals to have a good sense of what their risks are and might be.
You are asserting the needs of the party on one side of the issue. The law has a long history of assessing damage and who is liable for what. I'm confident that the judge and possibly the appeals court will resolve it in a way that makes sense.
These days, I'm not so sure. And judges historically haven't had the best understanding of tech.
I don't think this should set some large precedence, but there can be room based on private details to subpeona on if Google was negligent.
I feel similarly. At risk of sounding like a Boomer, is it that hard to clock a collapsed bridge? You shouldn't be glued to your navigation app when you drive. It's a guide.
And really, someone in the state should have stepped in. You have a dangerous obstacle that is injuring citizens repeatedly and has now finally killed someone.
I've dealt with washed out roadways more times than I'm happy to and some of them sneak up on you. You don't often think about the distances you're covering sometimes and sometimes you're looking beyond the collapse. In this case, I could see being fixated on what looks like the tree in the road on that picture and not even noticing the giant hole, depending on the angle...
That said, if there's a tree in the road what are you doing driving that close?! I would've hopefully stopped much farther back.
Having seen the images of the missing bridge, it looks like maybe a 12-15 foot span. The bridge was one of those simple ones they pave over so you don't even realize it's a bridge. At 11pm (time of crash) I can see how someone would miss the gap in the road.
It is seriously disturbing to me just how many people want to put the blame on the driver in this case. It shows that most have probably never been in a serious and sudden situation, especially in bad weather or at night. A huge % of avoided accidents are because you can see the obstacle coming, but a sudden and out of no where obstacle you're not expecting ups the chances of an accident tremendously just due to the speeds you're usually traveling at.
I think the reason for that is because of this being related to a lawsuit. In this situation, yeah, I don’t necessarily think the driver was maliciously trying to drive off of a bridge, but people feel the need to lay blame on either the driver or Google
And in my experiences, a lot of people are very apologetic to Google as well, for some strange reason. I’m not sure if that’s an influencing factor in this situation of blaming the driver, but some thing I’ve noticed nonetheless.
not in my experience. But people in more technical communities are more biased towards not holding tech responsible for human error. It's yet another situation on how much of a blame is placed on the victim, the business, or chalked up to a freak accident.
That's fair. I hadn't realized the accident was so late at night (thanks reading comprehension). I guess he just wasn't a local. Feel like it needs to be the state's responsibility to take care of problems like these. Privately constructed and owned bridges on public roadways seem like a very poor idea, especially when they become orphaned.
I'm honestly surprised the locals didn't do anything about it. Where I live, locals put up handmade signs (or even spray paint the road directly) to warn drivers about pot holes and the like. I feel like if this bridge existed here, someone would have run a rope across it.
The article states there were no barriers or signs and that the bridge had been collapsed for "years".
It's typical of lawsuits to sue everyone that can be remotely responsible and let the court decide which one sticks. They're also suing two other companies and one individual as the "Bridge Defendents" they deem responsible for maintaining, repairing, and erecting barricades/warning signs on the bridge.
Honestly, I think Google will likely be dismissed from the case as, pardon the parlance, if your friends told you to jump of a bridge no reasonable person would say it's their fault for you doing so.
The answer to basically every example is “when did they know it was collapsed”
Yes. If I know a bridge is collapsed and plan a route for someone that sends them off, I could be partially liable.
The whole reason this conversation is occurring is because Google was notified multiple times.
The only X that matters is “were you told and how many times?”
And how long did you wait before responding to the warning. Being told on Monday and someone driving off the edge on Tuesday is very different from being told five years before someone drives off the edge.
Wow. Most extreme case of victim-blaming I've heard in a while.
How is it victim blaming to point out that Google is not the responsible party but merely the entity that is both readily identifiable and with sufficient assets to pay a just compensation? The actual negligent parties seem either hard to find or are judgement proof.
A court is going to resolve the question of how much responsibility Google has for giving directions that are not deadly, and under what circumstances of reasonable action.
There are frequently injury cases with multiple responsible parties. Distributing damages is not a new legal issue.
Can you explain in a little more detail what you think is the correct division of blame between the victim, Google and the various other parties here?
Google was negligent in not updating the map after multiple people pointed out that it wasn't accurate and possibly dangerous. The time period doesn't matter. They knew it was potentially dangerous and did nothing.
You're most likely right that it's an opportunistic lawsuit, but you can't really believe that Google should share none of the blame?
I think your point would be valid if this was a self driving car or similar. Likewise, if the collapsed bridge lacked signage indicating that it was closed, some responsibility would fall on the DOT or similar organization that's responsible for road maintenance and signage.
If you're driving a car, ultimately you are responsible for doing that in a safe manner. No mapmaker or GPS company is responsible for a driver's decision to drive into a wall, the wrong way up a one-way street, or off a closed bridge.
I believe Google is negligent for the person getting lost. Google Map's job is to give you driving directions. They gave them poorly, and the person was lost. If Google is liable for damage, it is damage in correspondence with them being lost (which would not be very much).
In terms of driving off a bridge, that's a mixture of the driver's fault and the local government's fault, depending on the situation. The minutia of driving is the responsibility of the driver and the state of infrastructure is the responsibility of the local government.
We don't know when/if the victim turned on GPS, where they were heading, and if that was the best or only route to get to their destination. It's hard to determine how much fault Google is for "getting lost".
I would guess that the courts won’t decide that Google has primary responsibility for this accident. However, on general principles, I do think bad turn-by-turn directions are arguably safety-related and occasionally paying damages will encourage improvements, probably without affecting Google’s bottom line that much, since cases like this one are rare.
I’m reminded of a history of workspace safety in Construction Physics:
I don’t doubt that a lot of workspace accidents were and are caused by workers doing dumb things, but blaming them directly wasn’t the way to go. To improve a system, systemic changes are needed.
Similarly, I think if large private companies end up “owning” transportation safety (like they do in the airline industry, with government leadership) then safety will improve and that’s probably for the best. Driverless taxi services seem like the most likely way to get big safety improvements.
Currently, responsibility is distributed among billions of drivers and that makes systemic change hard. But car manufacturers often play a leading role (sometimes after being forced into it) and better directions could help a bit too.
Workplace fatalities used to be a lot more common.
https://www.resetsanfrancisco.org/faq/how-many-people-died-during-the-construction-of-the-golden-gate-bridge/
https://www.history.com/news/transcontinental-railroad-workers-impact
https://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/history/essays/fatal.html
This might be the case if they were JUST suing Google, but based on the excessive amount of Attorney Tom I've watched, it's actually extremely normal to sue literally any entity that could possibly have contributed to a catastrophic injury within this area of law. It avoids one party insisting that the whole thing was the fault of someone else who happens to not be here bc they're not being sued. If you sue everyone they could possibly blame, it makes that strategy impossible because they're also there arguing why it's not their fault. Their evidence against each other can presumably be used to strengthen the plaintiff's case in many situations and make it more likely they recover something from at least one of them.
In the end afaik they assign percentages of blame to various parties (including the person who was injured or killed) and that informs the monetary damages. So if they determine Google maps is 5% responsible but the people who didn't install signs are 50% responsible and the plaintiff is 45% responsible, that'll be reflected in the actual amount each party pays (or doesn't pay) in the end.
If anything, the fact that Google has deep pockets makes this more ethical, since they have more than enough money to survive defending the lawsuit (and I assume their own in-house legal team). They're extremely unlikely to actually be harmed much by this the way someone with less resources would.
only in a financial POV. I see it more from a pragmatic spirit of the law where it feels unethical to point fingers at vaugely related parties. Jeep also has deep pockets but it'd be more absurd to sue them over this. No car promises to survive careening off a bridge.
I think having a financial lens is important because it’s inescapable. I’d love for the courts system to be based on justice sans money, but that’s just not how it is.
If it applied the other way and protected private lower/middle citizens from having the book thrown at them over legal trolling, maybe. But we know there is such thing as outspending your accusations. As is, it feels more consistent to not take financials into account.
I think what we currently know of Google's behavior here makes it plausible enough for them ti have some liability that it's perfectly ethical (and pragmatic) to sue them in this case regardless.
If it is dark and foggy out and you expect there to be a road there... how slow do you have to go to be able to stop in time when there is no warnings or anything and the road just stops being there?
Honestly, unless it was broad daylight, I'm at least blaming the fact htere was no markings to alert some one the road was gone and google had plenty of time to fix their routing too (this wasn't like the bridge just washed out and they even had several people mention it to them). I would say Google isn't the main problem here rather than the road not being marked... but I'm not feeling too sorry for them when the bridge ahd been like that for 9 years and they even had several people warn them plenty of time before this incident.
In the case in this story, I'm not feeling so charitable to google or whoeever is responsible for marking the road (the state at least should have done something). And my first reaction when reading the headline was that people need to pay more attention to where they are driving.
But given what the article states about how the road was I can reasonably see a scenario where some one could be surprised enough (and still be paying attention to their driving) and not have time to stop. ANd it not be because they were going too fast.
All of the questions you raise are the sort of things that courts try to resolve and answer. Generally US courts have been pretty friendly to corporations. However, warning use at own risk in particular has been limited in the US in circumstances where courts find it an unreasonable way to escape basic levels of responsibility for your product.
That makes sense. Thanks for your comment here and your other comments. I'm not a lawyer so the colour you've provided from your legal background is interesting and useful.
From the article, it seems as if the road was an "unassumed road". I'm not sure if that nomenclature is generally applicable, but in my area, an unassumed road is a road that is on private property that is not publically maintained by the government.
In a case such as this, I would want for whatever app that I am using for navigation to not direct me over an unassumed road, and I think that it is a reasonable position to believe that your GPS isn't going to take you over private, unmaintained routes where the driver assumes the risk. I would be similarly alarmed if GPS directed me through any private property.
I don't think this is just a cash grab; it seems as if the GPS did something unexpected and unreasonable, and this is something that should be fixed.
As someone not in tech but who uses Google navigation frequently, it seems like adding a message for warning of a private road would be something that Google could do as they update their navigation system. Google warns of many road conditions already.
For the record, this isn't what I think either! I think my earlier comment might not have made it clear enough what I meant. My point was that because Google has a lot of money and probably a team of in-house lawyers they already pay salaries to, they aren't as negatively impacted by the process of having to defend themselves in this type of lawsuit as you or I would be. Even if they truly have zero liability, it won't be hard on them to afford the costs of being involved in the lawsuit to determine that. That's the point I was trying to make in my earlier comment.
I think it's reasonable to extract money out of Google in this case because they're probably partially liable for this incident, not just because they're a large corporation. Hopefully the other parties with somr liability also end up having to pay. But in any case sueing them like this is necessary to determine that.
I see, in that case I think we agree completely. Thanks for clarifying!
I'm a big fan of Google paying up to the extent that they are liable, just that I think their liability is probably really small (<1% if I had to guess). Certainly less than implied by the media coverage.
Off topic: @Deimos , are people notified when they are tagged in an edit to a comment, as opposed to in the original version of the comment? I couldn't find this in the docs.
Yes, they will be. The comments get re-processed after they're edited and will generate new notifications if different users are mentioned in the edited version.
This seems to be one instance of a bigger issue in which tech companies provide service worldwide but struggle to provide service or solve problems because even with large staffs, the number of users is massively greater and includes speakers of languages that are remote and obscure to people who speak the dominant languages. Max Fisher's book the Chaos Machine describes repeated incidents of big social media companies failing to provide content moderation when told of hateful content inciting ethnic violence in non english speaking communities around the world.
This case is interesting to me as a lawyer. Google not only provides maps, it gives directions. It tells people, turn here. follow this road etc. There are product liability standards that may apply. A person giving directions across a collapsed bridge would absolutely be held liable.
There was a news article I read about where I think it is much less likely that Google would be liable. I don't think there was even a lawsuit but I don't know.
In that case the person was driving in winter and turned onto a mountain road that is not cleared of snow and is also narrow without room to turn around. I don't think it is reasonable for Google to be required to keep track of that, but someone else, including judges might think differently.
I find this to be a rather strange mentality. If an atlas included such a passageway on the map, someone in such a situation may be inclined to take it. It'd be no different a situation than Google telling you, the existence of the passageway on the map and you deciding to go that way should result in you driving similarly towards a destination. You have the same responsibility in either case to look at the road in front of you. However in the way you approach it, you'd soon remove 99.99% of the advantages of a technological improvement because in the .01% chance it was wrong you ended up no worse off than if you didn't have the 99.99% of technological improvements.
Having said that, I can understand that there might be some unique elements to this situation, chiefly that it's a private road/bridge and it had been down for years with multiple reports with relative easily verifiable information (there was a news report linked even). I think many people probably don't understand differences in private and public roads, myself included, and maybe it's not possible for Google to easily tell the difference either. Generally I might have the belief that all roads I'm driving on are public and there's a certain minimum standard I'd expect from that, or if they're private but open to the public the same as if they were public roads, that there would be some kind of regulations that impose the same minimum standards. Whether that should impact Google's culpability in the matter I also don't know, but it is an additional wrinkle that someone with access to more information or has more expertise is more capable of weighing in on and makes it more difficult for me to use my layman knowledge to weigh in on.
It seems that some subdivisions are the primary type of private roads that the general public would end up driving on that don't have any kind of restrictions that would impede the public from driving on them. From what I'm finding it also seems these roads may have some government co-operations, like police could possibly have authority to ticket someone for speeding or such. Again further blurring the lines of what someone might expect if they think they're on public roads and private roads. One key thing that I'm finding in the documents of the lawsuit, the location of the broken bridge is within the same housing development that the victim (not sure the appropriate/respectful term to use here) had intended to go into. Google didn't direct someone into private roads that weren't private roads the victim had chosen to go onto by choosing that destination. It could be more against Google if the origination and destination had nothing to do with this residential subdivision and Google had directed someone through there as a shortcut.
With or without Google's maps, one could easily find themselves in this situation and going over a broken bridge. In that way, there's no proof that Google even led someone down a path that they wouldn't have otherwise gone. Of course without seeing signage or determining what someone would do alternatively, such as perhaps using a paper map and what might typically be visible on such maps (such as private roads), it's hard to even come close to making any kind of determination like that. It's possible someone would choose not to go anywhere at all if they didn't have a paper map handy or couldn't see signage on the road due to poor conditions outside.
Is there any precedence for companies that have been sued for something like this even though they claim to not be liable?
https://www.hanover.com/businesses/business-customer-resources/hanover-risk-solutions/introduction-product-liability-law#:~:text=Product%20liability%20is%20a%20term,law%20governing%20product%20liability%20litigation.
Law students spend a semester on Torts (civil liability for injury or damage) There is a lot of material to cover.
A company claiming not to be liable has as much credibility as a criminal defendant claiming not to be guillty. The judge and jury answer that question based on laws and regulations and controlling precedent.
Nah. It takes nothing to delete a road from Google. I doubt anyone actually notified them.
My condo has an ally in the back and it went decades without being mapped out until I clicked the submission button and it was handled in a matter of two or three days.
Whether or not Google was actually notified will be determined during the discovery process of the litigation. It would be a reckless lawyer who would claim that without solid evidence, but we will all find out.
I wish there was a picture of the bridge. I can imagine the scene, how a worst case scenario and a distracted driver can lead to this result. But I also find it surprising. Being able to see it for myself would answer a lot of questions.
“No signs, no barriers. It was dark, raining” yeah I think given this is in a wooded area and what’s left of the bridge is pretty dark and unmarked I can understand how you could mistake the lack of bridge for a simple decline.
Definitely not Google’s fault, though. It’s on private property. Sue the property owners.
I would agree with it not being google's fault if the bridge hadn't been like that for 9 years and they hadn't had several complaints (that weren't just given to them days ago) telling them their routing was putting epople over a non existant bridge.
The fact that they had plenty of time to rectify this and also warniings from people (at least a year ago) that it needed fixing says I am not feeling too sorry for Google being sued in this case. Yes, the bigger onus is the fact the road isn't marked but google had plenty of time to realize that their routing was putting people in a bad situation and if some one doesn't know the road, it's dark, and not marked (all of which happened here), they are most likely not going to notice until too late the routing that they were told to go doesn't exist!
It baffles me that everyone wants this to be binary.
Is it 100% google's fault? Absolutely not.
Is it mostly the fault of the private property owner and the local government for not correctly marking a bridge being out and allowing it to sit for so long? Yep.
Is google still liable for ignoring requests to fix the routing for years when it was potentially dangerous and killed someone? Yes.
They can all be wrong, and absolving google of wrongdoing here is such an insane stance to me.
I don't know. Since it's on private property, why is Google Maps directing someone to drive that way en route in the first place? If that was the destination, sure, but if that was just along the way, it shouldn't have been allowed map data. That said, I have no idea the mechanism used to determine which road are public or private, how Google gets that data, etc.
Google has map data for all kinds of private property. And private property can have a public right of way. The municipality might say “Yes you can buy that land but if you put a through road there it needs to be publicly accessible”.
Even if it’s not somewhere you’re allowed to be, in the US you have some rights to safety if you’re trespassing. But maybe not in this instance and suing Google is a last ditch effort.
Here's the local story, it has a short video of the collapsed bridge. And here's the location on Google Maps.
I don't know, maybe in the dark or inclement weather that could sneak up on you? To me it looks pretty obviously impassable but I've definitely been guilty of blindly following my gps at times...
Given how it looks intact in street view from 2012, I could understand how someone would expect a perfectly intact and functional road on this country path. On a clear and sunny day, you might see the dip, but otherwise, it could conceivably sneak up on you.
Unfamiliar neighborhood and I believe it was dark