[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.