I don’t think location history, or any of that are necessary. We know he drove off the bridge. My question is, do we know he was following Google Map’s turn-by-turn directions when he did that?
We know he searched Google Maps for the route information, and we know he drove off the bridge. Both of those things can occur without following Map’s navigation plan. That is something I do frequently. I’ll load the route to work (or home), and then see which of several alternatives it recommends (due to traffic). Then I’ll stop navigation, and likely go the advised route.
If somebody looked at my Maps’ history, they’ll see that the most recent search was for work (or home). If somebody looks at my location history they will see it follows the route I traveled, whether that was the same route Google Maps advised, or not.
I still think Google is not liable for errors in the mapping data. However, it is possible he wasn’t even using Maps’ directions. Google probably at some point had data showing if turn-by-turn directions were running when the accident happened, and if the turn-by-turn directions told him to go over the broken bridge. I don’t know if they collect that data (but I assume they do, as it’s Google), or how long they keep it.
I believe he was taking an unfamiliar route which is different than your going home from work scenario. It’s a civil suit so I think that the preponderance of the evidence (from what we now know) is that Google sent him that way. How much if any liability that means Google had is a different story
But they had lived there for two years. You would think that once Google got him close to his neighborhood, he’d know the way home.
I put the two addresses into Google Maps to see what route it would present. The directions took a route right by the Dollar General store which can be seen on the Maps screenshot that’s shown on page 8 of the complaint. From the Dollar General, it’s about two miles to the Paxson house on what appears to be a couple of main roads in the in the town.
After two years, Mr. Paxson should certainly have been at least somewhat familiar with that area, and would know how to proceed home using the main streets. I’m somewhat baffled that he was using Google being that close to home.
Which would be very different from what route he’d have gotten back then.
As many others have pointed out, proximity is meaningless if it’s not a route you ordinarily take or know. I happened into an enclave last year only a mile from my house that I’d never run into after 40 years at this address.
The location data is necessary (or at least very helpful) if it lines up with the directions Maps sent him. You were asking for evidence that he was following the directions, well if that location data lines up with the directions he was sent, that would be some strong evidence that he followed those directions.
The lawsuit the family filed says he drove off the bridge “while following GPS directions.”
But that’s the thing, he never even had a chance to get close to his own neighborhood. The house he was leaving from is in a neighborhood with which he was unfamiliar and the crash happened only half a mile away. His own house was still another 4 miles away.
And not for nothing, that whole area looks pretty fucking confusing to navigate. The guy lived on 36th Avenue NW and the house he left from was on 36th Avenue NE.
This is the assumption that I’m questioning. Do we know the directions he was sent?
Those directions are not frozen on a phone. They will change based on his actual location, and could be very different if recalculated under different conditions (traffic, etc.).
If I ask Google Maps for directions from my house to work, but on the way to work I detour for coffee, anybody who looks at my phone while I’m getting coffee will see that Google Maps is giving me turn-by-turn directions from the coffee shop to work, even though the original route never went to the coffee shop.
This isn’t some kind of hill I really want to defend. Reading some of the (now not so) recent posts made me questions whether we know he was following the Google Maps route or what the route even was. Yes, the lawsuit makes that claim, but the evidence seems to be “the last thing he did was look up the directions,” which is different.
If a day or two after the crash Google Maps’ directions from the party to home are to go over the broken bridge, then that probably was the route Maps sent him. If standing next to the broken bridge the route home says to go over the bridge, then that is pretty meaningless.
Of course not, only Google might have a record of this and they aren’t going to release that info to the public.
Your point is that he could have had turn-by-turn directions running, but ignoring them and chosing the route himself. It’s possible, but not probable. Google could be compelled to provide the percentage of users that deviate from the directions and trigger a rerouting.
However, I’m not sure the case against Google hinges on him using turn-by-turn directions as opposed to just using the map .They could assert that Google provided a map with a missing bridge marked passable. Perhaps he scrolled around on the map to chose his route. Also improbable.
In either case, there seems to be a consensus in the thread that Google might argue they had no duty to provide a safe and accurate map. That it doesn’t matter how he may have used the Maps app.
“If the other kids all jump off a bridge, do you, too?”. At some point, you are responsible for what you do. If you can’t see the road in front of you, you should stop.
Except that even if the guy turned the wrong way towards the bridge on his own accord, Maps would still - ostensibly, but likely - recalculate the route over the bridge as if there was no problem because as far as Maps was concerned there was still a passable road there. So whichever way you look at it (Maps directions vs him going walkabout), Maps probably had no issues with sending that guy over the bridge.
According to the suit, that pretty much happened. Even 6 months after being informed that the bridge was out and that someone had died there while following Maps directions, Maps was still sending people over the bridge.
Well, he did drive one of the big penis replacement jeeps, so maybe he thought he could make it. Jeep drivers tend to think they are invincible. Jeep Gladiator no less.
Lawsuits do not always have to be based upon the truth.
Mind you I think it is likely that he was following Google… but that doesnt mean Google is significantly liable.
“Informed” and “confirmed” are different things. I’d agree with you if Google somehow confirmed that it was out versus getting reports from random people.
Maybe it’s upthread, but it’s the owner of the bridge being sued? I feel they are the ones with serious liability. A bridge is out and they don’t do anything to block the road, or sign it? I had new front steps built, and it took a couple of months to get the handrail up. I put up poles and strung string, so at least people could see there was a dropoff.
