Hit by a car = Sue Google?

[Ken H.]

Well this is going to be an interesting case to watch – just how far does liability reach? At first glance I’d say this is another skirting of personal responsibility. But then again the author does bring up some interesting points.

 

Link

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

That article links to this article, which includes some helpful pictures. This article in turn links to this update, posted yesterday.

 

IMHO Plaintiff had ample opportunity to evaluate the hazards of walking along/crossing that road, and made an informed decision to do so. Depending on the circumstances she may or may not have a case against the driver, but if I were king, Google would not be held at all liable here.

[tallman]

The issue doesn't seem to be the directions.

 

The issue seems to be whether she could cross the street.

If pedestrians were not prohibited, as in freeways, then it would be reasonable to expect that at some time a pedestrian wouold try to cross the road.

 

That speaks more to road design and signage than to directions, IMO.

 

No traffic controlled intersections for her to use?

 

Hope she recovers, but this is a stretch.

 

Went to street view and there doesn't seem to be an easy way to get from A to B on foot.

Routing her through the off foad conditions may have put her in isolated areas where bad things might happen.

The destination is a place of lodging and it looks like an aprtment is the start point.

How did she get there?

Did no one have a car to drive the 5-7 minutes?

What time of day or night?

Street view shows little traffic at the time it was loaded.

Anyone who lived at the departure address would know that there was no easy pedestrian route.

Sad she was injured, but Common Sense and street crossing skills would have made this a nonevent.

[motoguy128]

Oh boy, another lawsuit related to not having any common sense.

 

So if Google directs me through a dangerous neighborhood in Detroit, Chicago, NYC, or St. Louis in the middle of the night and I get robbed or assaulted, I should sue Google as well???

 

 

I will admit, there is a godo point made, that if they are going to offer this service, the route provided should be safe for a pedestrian. then again, ultimately without the service, the person would have been forced to use a conventional map or telephone and eb placed in a similar situation.

 

So the question might be... is it reasonable to assume that Google directions are safe, when the alternative may not be???

 

OTOH, what if a normally safe road was under construction, or had washed out? Is is reasonable for Google to know what the specific condition of every road in the US is?

 

 

Regardless, I hope this gets thrown out. Thsi reminds me too much of hte Hot McDonalds coffee lawsuit. As a result of that, all cups of coffee have lids warning you that it's hot Ya no sh** it's hot. It's lke having all automobiles required ot have large yellow signs on theri roofs that say "CAR MAY BE IN MOTION".

 

I personally have used enough GPS's to know that ALL directions are suspect. But, I still find it more accurate and convenient than a paper map. If nothing else, it will always tell you where you are. That's someting a map cannot do.

[motoguy128]

Looking at another link to the actual directions, it looks like if she took 2 seconds to look at the route, she would have noticed that there was a parallel surface street that was a alternate to the state highway. Maybe it's just because I ride bicycles and jog, but I would never select a major highway, when a parallel residental road is available nearby.

 

If she wins this lawsuit... I mgiht think twice before ever giving anyone directions again. If Google can be liable for bad direction, then why not a private citizen trying ot be helpful. then again, if you attempt to provide CPR to someone and fail, you cna be held liable as well. A burgular can break into your home and get injured on the broken glass and sue.

[Albert]

It's a good thing she didn't also request directions for a lunch stop. Google might have directed her to a hardware store where she might have ordered the rat poison.

[ltljohn]

It's a good thing she didn't also request directions for a lunch stop. Google might have directed her to a hardware store where she might have ordered the rat poison.

Or to a McDonald's where she could have gotten coffee.....

[Mike]

Despite the fact that I've sometimes ceded too much control to my GPS, I think anyone with half a brain understands that web/GPS routing is no substitute for common sense. Of course, sense isn't apparently all that common these days.

[Woodie]

if you attempt to provide CPR to someone and fail, you cna be held liable as well.

Every state has statutory protections for people providing "medical care" or first aid in emergency situations. (Good Samaritan acts)

 

[tallman]

if you attempt to provide CPR to someone and fail, you cna be held liable as well.

Every state has statutory protections for people providing "medical care" or first aid in emergency situations. (Good Samaritan acts)

 

And they vary as to whom and what extent the "protection" is afforded.

I would read the one for the state of residence very carefully.

Good Sam

 

Is this still the law in Californyuh?

[yabadabapal]

Back in the beginning of the internet I went to Yahoo for directions and for fun I thought Id try getting directions from Los Angeles CA to London England. I swear this is what I was told to do.

It gave me all the right road maps from Lon Angeles to NYC and then instructed me to go to a certain pier. Then the directions said "jump in and swim" and then it quoted the swimming distance as approximately 2900 miles. Had some person with limited mental faculties actually jumped in and drowned while trying to swim from NYC to London, maybe a big lawsuit could have followed. The next day I tried to show the same directions but it came up as not available. This lawsuit from the woman who got hit if not for the disclaimer might have been similar.

[motoguy128]

Sadly, sometiems I look at some of these instances as Darwinism. If you lack the common sense to not know better than to jump in an ocean in the attempt to swim 2900 miles to the UK, you 1) aren't much of a loss to the gene pool. 2) probably shouldn't be allowed outdoors unsupervised.

[Ken H.]

Sadly, sometiems I look at some of these instances as Darwinism. If you lack the common sense to not know better than to jump in an ocean in the attempt to swim 2900 miles to the UK, you 1) aren't much of a loss to the gene pool.

If our individual contributions to the gene pool could be judged as positive or negative by a single characteristic, such as misjudgment of a circumstance, I’d have a tendency to agree with you; but they cannot. 20,000 different human genes sees to that.

[Albert]

 

I agree Ken, I've excercised misjudgment many times but I have lovely brown eyes.

[Joel]

IMHO Plaintiff had ample opportunity to evaluate the hazards of walking along/crossing that road, and made an informed decision to do so. Depending on the circumstances she may or may not have a case against the driver, but if I were king, Google would not be held at all liable here.

 

+1.

 

Plaintiff's counsel's reference to Utah's contributory negligence law indicates that he is betting that Google will make the economic decision that it would cost far less to settle the claim than litigate it. Would he act differently if his client were at risk of paying Google's legal expense if the verdict went in favor of Google, or if the plaintiff's contributory negligence exceeded any negligence on Google's part?

[CarrotNC]

If the pedestrian had asked a bystander for directions, and these were substantially the same as what Google provided, would the bystander be sued?

 

In my own travels I've asked plenty of bystanders for directions; some useful, some not. In either case a healthy dose of personal judgement was deployed to protect my safety; no way I'd risk my life just to follow a set of suggestions.

[tallman]

Sadly, sometiems I look at some of these instances as Darwinism. If you lack the common sense to not know better than to jump in an ocean in the attempt to swim 2900 miles to the UK, you 1) aren't much of a loss to the gene pool. 2) probably shouldn't be allowed outdoors unsupervised.

 

But please remember, more than one person has swum across the Atlantic.

[Bob Palin]

Sadly, sometiems I look at some of these instances as Darwinism.

Was she rendered infertile by this accident?

[motoguy128]

Sadly, sometiems I look at some of these instances as Darwinism.

Was she rendered infertile by this accident?

 

Unforunately, mostly likely no. So I suppose Darwinism doesn't apply. Worse yet, if word gets out how stupid this girls is, she may appear even more attractive to potential mates. In the least, if her lack of common sense extends to decisions regarding procreation... we'll that speaks for itself.

[RonStewart]

Back in the beginning of the internet I went to Yahoo for directions and for fun I thought Id try getting directions from Los Angeles CA to London England. .... Then the directions said "jump in and swim" and then it quoted the swimming distance as approximately 2900 miles.

 

First - good on Yahoo for being funny until its legal department got in the way.

 

Google is still doing it, though. Instructions to get from Sidney, BC to Sydney, NSW include,

 

"24. Kayak across the Pacific Ocean, 4,436 km. Entering Hawaii"

"41. Kayak across the Pacific Ocean, 6,243 km. Entering Japan"

"102. Kayak across the Pacific Ocean, 5,404 km. Entering Australia (Northern Territory)"

[Harry_Wilshusen]

Back in the beginning of the internet I went to Yahoo for directions and for fun I thought Id try getting directions from Los Angeles CA to London England. .... Then the directions said "jump in and swim" and then it quoted the swimming distance as approximately 2900 miles.

 

First - good on Yahoo for being funny until its legal department got in the way.

 

Google is still doing it, though. Instructions to get from Sidney, BC to Sydney, NSW include,

 

"24. Kayak across the Pacific Ocean, 4,436 km. Entering Hawaii"

"41. Kayak across the Pacific Ocean, 6,243 km. Entering Japan"

"102. Kayak across the Pacific Ocean, 5,404 km. Entering Australia (Northern Territory)"

 

See the system works. Google is being responsible by replacing an outlandish instruction with a reasonable one.

 

 

Harry