[cromwellian]

What if the guy was using paper maps? If this was 30 years ago would paper nap publisher be liable?

When you are driving, you’re responsible for being aware of the road. If you drive over a dangerous road that has no visible signs of it being dangerous, then it’s the government’s fault, or if a private road, the owner’s fault.

[dfdsafsadf2]

That's not really close to what's going on. There's the normal user's presumption that Google is up to date, for instance. And Google takes steps to fulfill that, for instance by providing live traffic data and other road hazards warnings. Not to mention that people stepped forward with evidence saying they informed Google.

Whether that nuance really matters is up to the courts I guess. But I don't think this is in the same ballpark as a decades-old map where the average user wouldn't presume it's up to date.

[yreg]

>normal user's presumption that Google is up to date

I don't think that's a reasonable presumption. I have experienced Google maps being inaccurate countless times and surely so have the others. I doubt Google guarantees in any way that the maps are up to date and it would be unreasonable to expect that.

What is, however, reasonable to expect — is that the government blocks the road to a collapsed bridge.

[freejazz]

The issue isn't people's expectations. The issue is that google was on notice that it was sending people to a collapsed bridge and didn't stop. Upon some reflection, I'm sure you can come up with some reasons why there is an appreciable legal difference between the two. I think there is also a difference between what you are characterizing that people expect as "a presumption that Google is up to date" which just seems like a trivializing abstraction from the more specific point that people would not expect google to provide hazardous instructions.

>What is, however, reasonable to expect — is that the government blocks the road to a collapsed bridge.

That's completely besides the point because they can both be liable. So saying that the gov't has fault doesn't rebut that Google does too. After all, the gov't was not the proximate cause of the incident, as they did not send him over the bridge, that was Google.

It's a bit obnoxious when people come on here to argue about negligence while completely ignoring what negligence entails, the distinctions in how it operates, etc, while pretending they are keyboard attorneys.

[yreg]

>That's completely besides the point because they can both be liable

That's not at all besides the point. When I make my own navigation software and publish it on the internet, I'm not liable for keeping the roads safe.

I defer that responsibility to the government. I rely on the roads being safe because there are other institutions responsible for ensuring that.

[freejazz]

It's not a question of you, it's a question of their obligations under law and nothing you are saying is responsive to that. They are on notice that they were creating a hazard by sending drivers over a collapsed bridge and they did nothing about it. It's prima facie negligence. You don't really seem to have any idea what you are talking about, and your arguments aren't responsive to the allegations the plaintiff made. See my other posts.

[Elidrake42]

Knowing that a danger exists within the offering of your product and doing nothing to mitigate or remove the issue absolutely makes you, in part, liable. Do others in this situation share liability? Absolutely.

[sfn42]

Google maps being wrong is not a danger, it is an inconvenience. Drivers are responsible for their own driving, no map app is perfect. It is completely unreasonable to assume or expect that Google Maps routes are always correct and safe.

[freejazz]

So, when do you assume that Google isn't taking you over a collapsed bridge? Is it some of the times you cross a bridge? All the time? What to do you to confirm that Google's directions aren't actually ever hazardous, considering it's your own responsibility?

[sfn42]

I don't need to assume anything. I just look at the road in front of me and if there's an obstacle I handle it. I adjust my speed so that I am in control. If Google tells me to drive onto a collapsed bridge I look ahead, see the bridge and choose to drive somewhere else instead because I'd rather not die. It could just as easily be an accident site or a downed tree or a person in the road or anything.

"But it was dark and blah blah" Irrelevant. If you can't see you can't drive. If you can see 10 meters ahead you go slow enough that you can stop in 5 meters. Yes that's slow. Yes it's inconvenient. Guess what. Dying or killing someone is slower and more inconvenient.

That's the end of this discussion. Everyone who thinks these rules are unreasonable are irresponsible drivers who shouldn't be allowed to drive. Yes, I know that's like 70% of drivers if not more. Doesn't change the fact that 99% of traffic accidents are caused by this kind of negligence and entirely avoidable if people would just pull their heads out of their asses and take proper responsibility.

Traffic kills more people than anything else in modern society. Nearly 4000 people every single day. That's 2-3 people every single minute. Multiple people probably died while you were reading this comment. Because people don't pay attention to the road, people don't appreciate the danger they are putting themselves and others in.

The fact that "you should drive safer" is in any way controversial is just a testament to how fucking dumb people are.

[autoexec]

> What if the guy was using paper maps?

Paper maps don't advertise themselves has having up to the minute information and continuous updates. Nobody expects a paper map to have the most up to date information. When someone uses a paper map they do so with that understanding.

People do expect google to know when there's a traffic jam and they expect google to update their maps with the data consumers provide to them.

[relativ575]

They may have real time traffic information, but please show where Google advertise Map has up to the minute accuracy, for the entirely map. Even if it does, things happen. What if the road collapsed 10 mins ago? Would you be blindly following the map's direction, regardless of what you do or do not see?

> they expect google to update their maps with the data consumers provide to them.

They should keep the map up to dated, Google is clearly not up the task. Liability is another matter. No way they should be liable. The lawsuit is frivolous.

[freejazz]

The issue is not "up to the minute accuracy" the issue is Google's response to being put on notice that it is creating a hazard by sending people over a collapsed bridge. This is how negligence law works. It is understandable that you do not realize this, but nevertheless you are incorrect because of this lack of understanding.

This isn't a lawsuit where the road collapsed 10 minutes ago. It's a lawsuit where the road collapsed 9 years ago, and Google had at least 2 years of notice that it was sending people over the collapsed bridge. In your scenario, neither the gov't nor google would be at fault for their lack of warning. But that has no bearing on this situation, because it's not a lawsuit where the bridge collapsed 10 minutes ago.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiff is going to establish that Google had notice. A defense of this, that Google doesn't update the map every 10 minutes is frivolous, and no judge will allow an expert to testify on that point because the issue isn't how often Google updates its maps, but what Google does to update its maps after its been informed that the map is hazardous.

>They should keep the map up to dated, Google is clearly not up the task. Liability is another matter. No way they should be liable. The lawsuit is frivolous.

It's not at all and you seem to have an uninformed view of the the relevant legal principles.

[PeterisP]

If the publisher published a new paper map release, including that bridge 2 years after the publisher was explicitly notified of the problem, and someone died using that new map, I wouldn't be surprised if they would get sued just as Google is now.