In all 4 cases I’d say the only real responsibility is for whoever is responsible for that section of road (the city, a private owner, etc). If your host knew about the bridge, and especially if they did try to warn you, they may feel guilty, but I would not think it is fair to blame them.
No, they did not know anything of the kind. They knew it had been reported as out. Not the same thing. People do report things that are not true, especially private road owners who dont like outsiders driving on their road.
Exactly.
Also, I note he was driving a jeep, and Jeep drivers tend to think they can drive thru anything.
Umm, how do we know he was using Google maps?
No, but I would pay a small subscription fee for better accuracy. The thing is with crowd-sourced apps like Waze, it’s only as accurate as the people reporting it. I don’t know how much responsibility you can put on Google. The road should have been blocked off by whoever was responsible for maintaining it, that’s my opinion.
That’s a really good question. I suppose if there was a dashcam equipped with an in-cabin camera, it could be known for sure.
I suppose Google might retain records of people’s map queries and usage, so that might have been requested as evidence.
Absent those two things, it’s going to be inferred (with less than 100% certainty) from evidence such as ‘He always does’, ‘he said he would’ or ‘the phone was in the holder so it looks as if he did’
The ‘gotcha’ (unintentional, I’m sure) is that there is no option five:
- The host knew the bridge was out, but when the man asked for directions, the host said “There’s a bridge about a mile down the road, take the third left and you can’t miss it. Just go right across the bridge and keep on driving. That’ll be your quickest way home.”
That’s interesting, because if he did that with full knowledge that the bridge was out, then I think he would be to blame, but what if:
- The host had been told at some point the bridge was out, but for one reason or another, had not absorbed the information, so when the man asked for directions, the host innocently and without malice said “There’s a bridge about a mile down the road, take the third left and you can’t miss it. Just go right across the bridge and keep on driving. That’ll be your quickest way home.”
From the quotes in the CNN article it sounds like one of the reports to Google was that the road was impassable as opposed to that the bridge was out.
If all of the reports were like that, I think it is reasonable that the route might not be updated within a year.
So… there’s a serial killer working at Google Maps? It’s possible.
Well, gosh. Now it’s getting to be such a complicated fact pattern, trying to distinguish between 5 and 6, that it seems like we really ought to leave it to a jury to decide whether it’s 5 or 6.
…which would be one step closer to a favorable outcome (for the plaintiff) than the earlier court case involving a woman crossing the road got. So much so that maybe Google would want to settle to avoid risking an unfavorable (to them) court decision.
You know, that’s a great question.
The complaint, linked above, states in Item 51 ‘Google Maps directed Mr. Paxson to travel home over the Snow Creek Bridge.’
But directly above, in Item 49, ‘Upon information and belief…Mr Paxson used the Google Maps application to identify directions home.’
So IANAL, but ISTM that it is BELIEVED that the deceased used Google Maps to find a route to his house. Can it be proven? Is that important?
I certainly don’t know.
Of course it’s important. And I suspect it can be proven as well, though perhaps it would require some discoverable information from Google. But, hey, that’s what lawsuits are for.
I guess that was my point. Right now, it’s assumed that he used Google Maps. But it’s not known for certain.
This is really a good point, and why I’m finding this thread so fascinating.
I think you missed my point. Yes, malicious feedback is a problem. But that’s not the issue I was raising. Not at all.
This is the issue I was driving (heh!) at:
People driving around that area using Google maps who get directed to to the closed bridge have some motivation to report that discrepancy when they find the bridge out and are forced to backtrack. Now imagine the bridge is repaired and reopened. Some other user, equally unfamiliar with the area drives over the bridge. How would they know to report that the bridge is in operation? They would not. Bridges being open is the norm. Meanwhile, if Google was routing people around the once-closed-now-opened bridge, almost by definition Google map users will never encounter the bridge to discover that it’s actually open.
So it would be unlikely that Google would ever learn of re-opened routes in general, not just this one bridge. If the public cannot be relied to tell them when routes are re-opened, they have a problem declaring routes closed for temporary reasons. Otherwise slowly but surely every route will have false closures on it.
People report barking dogs. They don’t report silent dogs. it’s as simple as that.
That’s typically the kind of things juries are asked to determine (if the judge allows it to get that far) “What would a reasonable company do with the information they received?” Plaintiff’s experts would say they should have done more. Defense experts would say they acted reasonably. Jury decides.
By default, your position is reported to Google, at least while the mapping app is in use. That obviously has to happen when you initially ask it for a route from “current position”. Continued monitoring of your position is how it knows about traffic conditions, that’s how it can find the nearest gas station or coffee shop for you. So as soon as anyone drives across a reopened bridge, Google will know it’s open. That may take a little while to happen if Google is directing people away from it. But it doesn’t require active reporting on the part of the user.
But if Google has the bridge marked closed, and you’re using Google maps to navigate, you will NEVER be directed over the bridge they “know” is closed. It becomes a one-way latch. Google can learn the bridge is closed by user report. But it cannot learn the bridge is open by telemetry.
Do police patrol the roads on either side of the non-bridge? If so, I’d imagine they would be aware of the potential hazard, and I don’t think it much of a stretch to say they ought to have protected people from it.
Anonymized telemetry data is collected even when not navigating.
Not everyone who allows reporting of their position is following a Google-recommended route all the time. As soon as a local who knows the bridge is open uses it then Google will know its open.