Google maps sued for drowning death

In My Humble Opinion
141

We don’t have enough information to answer.
I general, yes, you should not be driving beyond the limits of your ability to perceive a safe path ahead, but the world is a big, varied place and perception can be tricked. You can do all the right things and still be the victim of and accident where the unusual or deceptive appearance of the path ahead and the weirdness of human perception collide and conspire to create something that confounds your best efforts at doing it right.

I’m thinking of a road near me where you come over the brow of a hill and see the road stretch out directly ahead of you for miles in a perfect straight line (it’s an old Roman road). Concealed in a dip in the landscape is a sharp left turn of the road you’re actually driving on. The bit that looks like it goes straight ahead isn’t connected like it appears to be.

Now sure, you shouldn’t be driving so fast that the sharp left would be a problem, if you know about the sharp left, but all of what your eyes tell you is ‘straight, clear road ahead’

142

I worked for digital road mapping companies for many years, as a software engineer. The problem is not that the map had errors. All maps have errors. The problem is that Google was told about this specific dangerous situation, and did nothing about it.

143

Was the situation actually dangerous when Google was told? If the barriers were there, it’s just a closed road.

144

They were (presumably) told the road was closed, but did not mark it as closed.

145

That was a point that I made in my first post. They were allegedly told multiple times.

This surprised me because they fixed the small mistake that sent people to the side of my house instead of the front of my house within days of my reporting it.

146

Exactly. We own a road.
IOW. We own the land. When we graveled the cow path to our house place the county came in and built a proper road bed(kinda sorta) and carried the road through to the next county to meet a county road there. It’s open to the public to use. Mostly billet haulers. An occasional lookyloo just riding the roads or up to some hanky panky. ( had to build a big gate or young lovers were often in my front yard)

Luckily there’s no bridge. Not even a culvert over a creek, that needs to be there.

147

I suspect the difference is, at some point they expected the bridge to be rebuilt, at which point they’d have to go back and change it again so the road shows as usable again. Easier just to do nothing. With your address issue, your house is never going to change where its front door is, so fixing that is a “permanent” fix.

148

Especially in the rain. You don’t have to get much of a car “over the edge” to slide down into a ditch like that, if everything is slippery. You cpuld be creeping along very slowly, peering through the dark and rain and get yourself in trouble. A bridge out with no sign is actually hard to see. Way harder than a deer or an obstacle. Its hard to understand, because its whats not there that you have to figure out–and flat low bridges are pretty subtle. In the rain and dark, even at 10 mph, by the time you realized there was nothing, it might be too late. Slam on your brakes, slide 3-4 car lengths, end up sliding down into the water. Whole thing in slow motion, still could be deadly.

149

That’s a difference but we are talking about an entire bridge not being there. It’s only two changes and a bridge missing is a much bigger deal than DoorDash being left at my side gate once in a while

150

I was going to reply that they were only told once, but from the filing (PDF), as you say, they were allegedly told multiple times, but there is only documentation that they were told once.

Looking through the filings are these two items, which seem to me much more important than incorrect map data.

  1. The Bridge Defendants refused to properly maintain the bridge, leaving it in a horrendously dangerous state of disrepair for years.
  2. The Bridge Defendants refused to place reasonable and proper barricades in front of the hazard to alert drivers of the deadly drop and failed to enact inspection measures to ensure that barricades remained in front of the hazard until necessary repairs occurred.

My thought on Google’s liability in all of this, is where does it stop? If Google is liable for errors in mapping data, then so is any other mapmaker, including paper maps.

151

I imagine there’s a pipeline process for making alterations to the map. Hindsight tells us that it would have been good to have treated the matter as urgent. Escalated it to the front of the queue perhaps, if they had known it posed a serious risk, but did they know what we know now?

152

That’s an interesting point. Maybe it could be argued that we assume a paper map is only accurate on the day it is made. We assume that Google or Apple guidance should be continuously updated. If the bridge collapsed that morning, it would be a different story.

I’ve been in situations where planned temporary road closures were shown. I use Apple for my GPS but I assume it’s the same.

I wonder if Apple Maps would have done the same thing on that night.

153

I’m okay with mapmakers being accountable for errors that they’re told about, on their next edition of the map.

154

Which would still put map makers on the hook for any re-prints they do without updating their maps.

And would liability apply if the guy had asked his hosts for directions, and their verbal directions sent them over the bridge?

155

Probably if they were informed multiple times about the bridge and they told him anyway.

156

Here’s my question:
Given the setting such as darkness of the surrounding and assuming the driver was at an appropriate speed assuming the bridge was there, was there ample time for him to stop once he could see there was no bridge. And that’s why I equated the GM terms with the “We are not responsible for rocks falling out of our truck and damaging your car.” Just like they expect us to be 150’ behind, does Google expect us to drive 5 mph just in case their information is wrong?

157

I’m not sure I’d agree–it depends on what “made” means. I’d interpret that as “updated”. If you update a map to keep it current, and someone has told you about a deadly trap, you must include the deadly trap in the update.

As for an individual’s liability for deadly directions, I think it should come down to a reasonability standard. If I give you deadly directions because I’m being careless, maybe I’m on the hook. But if I didn’t know the bridge was out–if, for example, it had washed out since the last time I’d taken that route–I don’t think I should be liable.

If someone had specifically contacted me to tell me the bridge was out? Sue the pants off me.

158

It’s completely possible that the next update from Google Maps would have deleted the bridge. Just because it is online, does not mean it is continuously updated.

It also runs into the same problem as content moderation—the extremely high volume of data makes it impossible for humans to be checking things in real time. The data does have to be verified, because there have also been instances of people submitting incorrect data to Google Maps, as mentioned in this thread, to make a through street seem closed. It has also occurred as ways to interfere with competing businesses, for example saying your competitor closes at 5 instead 7. These are not hypothetical.

What about older cars that have map data on DVDs? Those always charge for an update, if they’re even still available. Should automakers have to do a recall when they find errors in the map data?

The primary responsibility of the driver needs to be driving the car. Maps, GPS, and online navigation are all aids to help the driver get to their destination, but the driver is in charge of the next 200 feet in front of the car. Sometimes 15 MPH is too fast for conditions. Sometimes you don’t know that 15 MPH is too fast for conditions until you try to stop, and can’t.

159

Can we stop with the “deserved to die” BS? No one suggesting the driver bore some responsibility suggested as much. IMO, it is not helpful to grossly mischaracterize other people’s positions.

I’m well aware of comparative fault, contributory negligence, proximate cause, and all that good stuff. IMO, SEVERAL parties bear some responsibility for what happened. My personal opinion is that Google bears considerable liability, since they were told the bridge was gone, and apparently their Streetview cameras showed barriers blocking the road. I also feel they bear some responsibility because they have encouraged people to turn on the app and turn off their brains.

What I have a hard time imagining is the folk who claim the driver bears NO responsibility for driving somewhere that he couldn’t see a road, at night and in the rain.

WRT to asking instructions? Boy, you guys think even less of your fellow man than I do - and that is saying A LOT! :smiley: Sure, some people are horrible at giving directions - providing excessive detail. IME, they are a minority, but your experience may differ. But it kinda boggles my mind that you wouldn’t even ask someone, “What’s the best way to get out of your subdivision and back to main road X?” Sure, you might run into a bad direction giver. But you also might run int someone saying, “By all means, be careful of that bridge which is out!” Make your choice.

And sure, Google might be useful to avoid tolls, construction, or traffic, or if you really want to make time. But this was a 4 mile 10 minute drive, far from the center of town of 43,000, late at night. Sure, might as well dial up the app instead of actually talking to a fellow human or turning on your brain.

That has long been a running joke in our family - if someone says “You can’t miss it”, it’s a sure bet we will! :wink:

160

It can be really tough to tell the difference between a puddle and a hole when it’s dark, especially if there are other visual clues like guardrails that suggest the road continues.

Here’s an example of a driver who almost drove into a pit (caution: profanity):