[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.