Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google The Courts

Google Sued Over Fatal Google Maps Error After Man Drove Off Broken Bridge (arstechnica.com) 282

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
FrankOVD writes: Google is being sued by a widow who says her husband drowned in September 2022 after Google Maps directed him over a collapsed bridge in Hickory, North Carolina. Google failed to correct its map service despite warnings about the broken bridge two years before the accident, according to the lawsuit filed Tuesday by Alicia Paxson in Wake County Superior Court. Philip Paxson "died tragically while driving home from his daughter's ninth birthday party, when he drove off of an unmarked, unbarricaded collapsed bridge in Hickory, North Carolina while following GPS directions," the complaint said.

The Snow Creek Bridge reportedly collapsed in 2013 and wasn't repaired. Barricades were typically in place but "were removed after being vandalized and were missing at the time of Paxson's wreck," according to The Charlotte Observer. The lawsuit has five defendants, including Google and its owner Alphabet. The other defendants are James Tarlton and two local business entities called Tarde, LLC and Hinckley Gauvain, LLC. Tarlton and the two businesses "owned, controlled, and/or were otherwise responsible for the land" containing the bridge, the lawsuit said.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Sued Over Fatal Google Maps Error After Man Drove Off Broken Bridge More

Google Sued Over Fatal Google Maps Error After Man Drove Off Broken Bridge

Comments Filter:

  • Personal Responsibility Be Damned (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WankerWeasel ( 875277 ) on Thursday September 21, 2023 @11:03PM (#63867511)

    I'm not a Google fan but I don't see how this is their fault. Seems far more the fault of the state/county for not blocking off the bridge to prevent such an event from happening. You still have a personal responsibility to look where you're driving. If a friend had given them the directions instead of Google, would they be suing the friend?

    End of the day, the driver is responsible for where they drive and needs to be looking at where they're going.

    "It's Google's fault I hit that person because the directions didn't say there would be people in the crosswalk."

    • He who has the gold, gets sued.

    • Re:Personal Responsibility Be Damned (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ZorinLynx ( 31751 ) on Thursday September 21, 2023 @11:26PM (#63867543) Homepage

      Also the damn bridge was out for TWO YEARS. It should have been, you know, *repaired* during that time?

    • Re:Personal Responsibility Be Damned (Score:4, Interesting)

      by piojo ( 995934 ) on Thursday September 21, 2023 @11:27PM (#63867549)

      If a friend had given them the directions instead of Google, would they be suing the friend?

      If the friend knowingly gave directions over a collapsed bridge, I certainly hope so.

      • your friend is not an live map with live directions.

        and this does not look like an private road

      • Oh please. Google didn't knowingly send the car over the bridge.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

          Oh please. Google didn't knowingly send the car over the bridge.

          They created the software tools, which have their name all over them, and they claim that their service is up to date. They received multiple reports of the bridge being out, and their own street view vehicles had taken photos of the bridge being out. So yes, yes they absolutely did knowingly send the car over the bridge. And they misrepresented their product as well.

    • End of the day, the driver is responsible for where they drive and needs to be looking at where they're going.

      Not quite. The entities responsible for blocking access are responsible. I, too, question Google's liability but to pin it all on the driver is just wrong unless you're hinting at suicide.

      • Yes this should have been blockaded but there is still a degree of personal responsibility. One should not overdrive their headlights meaning they should drive no faster than they can safely brake to the distance they can see with their headlights. Was he driving faster than he could brake? Did he not have his eyes on the road? These would be personal responsibilities.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Shakrai ( 717556 )

          Agree with not overdriving your headlights, don’t hear that expression very often these days, but for the sake of the argument, I presume you’ve driven in thick fog once or twice in your life? It’s very common on the East Coast, especially in the Southeast, when high humidity meets cooler overnight temperatures at/near the dew point. I’ve been in it so thick all you can do is follow the white shoulder line to stay on course.

          No idea that’s what happened here but it was my firs

    • Re:Personal Responsibility Be Damned (Score:5, Informative)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 ) <[ten.frow] [ta] [todhsals]> on Thursday September 21, 2023 @11:33PM (#63867561)

      Yeah, I've always wondered how people manage to do this. I mean, you have people driving off piers and into bodies of water, into the literal middle of nowhere, down forestry roads (typically very rugged, unpaved and unsuitable for anything but trucks) and such.

      I mean, do people turn off their brains or something?

      How does it happen?

      I know if I'm driving, and the GPS tells me to go down an unpaved road, I'd probably be doubting it unless I knew my destination was in an incredibly rural area. IN other words, unless the road is under construction and there is traffic, I likely won't take my car off paved roads.

      And yes, I do use the GPS a lot because if I'm unfamiliar with an area, it helps me know how to get around. It also allows me when I miss turns because I'm trying to concentrate on driving and where the wheels are going than actually trying to nail which street is which street.

      I mean, the nice lady in the box never gets angry if I don't happen to follow her instructions so I feel free to make sure I'm obeying the law and the roads make sense to me (i.e., I'm not going to drive into a lake). Eventually they'll have AI and learn to warn me to take roads way in advance

      • unpaved roads are an thing in some areas and if you don't know the area you can take an map service route down an dead end road.

      • Re:Personal Responsibility Be Damned (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MacMann ( 7518492 ) on Friday September 22, 2023 @12:07AM (#63867657)

        And yes, I do use the GPS a lot because if I'm unfamiliar with an area, it helps me know how to get around. It also allows me when I miss turns because I'm trying to concentrate on driving and where the wheels are going than actually trying to nail which street is which street.

        I use GPS even when going to very familiar places like to the grocery store and back because by removing that tiny load off my mind on where I need to turn next I can put more attention on traffic and such around me. I know the computer will recompute the path if I miss a turn or decide to deviate from the path given so I'm still quite certain I'll still get where I'm going.

        What annoys me often is that most every mapping program puts too much "weight" on taking major roads. I know I can get where I'm going by not taking some interstate highway or some major thoroughfare through town. There's just times I'd rather take side streets to avoid distractions of heavy traffic and/or avoid left turns not controlled by a traffic light. I'd like it if the software contained enough detail and some means to set preferences on avoiding left turns and known busy streets. I've read some advancements have been made in that direction so I expect things like that soon from the Google and Apple apps I use.

        I recall a GPS device that would keep taking me back to the same closed road while trying to navigate through an unfamiliar area. I had to pull over and rummage through the settings to find some way to mark the path in front of me as closed. Just making it easier to mark a path as closed would go a long way in making GPS navigation systems less stressful. Again, I point out that GPS navigation makes driving less stressful as they are now, I simply expect them to make things even less stressful in the future to remain competitive in the market. Also worth noting is that drivers should be aware that bridges fail, and road maintenance crews should take care to properly close off paths that are not safe.

        I mean, do people turn off their brains or something?

        In a way I do turn off bits of my brain with GPS navigation. Once I put where I'm going in the computer I can find myself so "turned on" to paying attention to the road, or some unrelated thoughts in my head, that I forget where I was headed in the first place until the computer says I've arrived. I've been "trained" that I don't have to think about certain details any more, and if taken too far then people try to drive over bridges that aren't there.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Bumbul ( 7920730 )

          In a way I do turn off bits of my brain with GPS navigation. Once I put where I'm going in the computer I can find myself so "turned on" to paying attention to the road, or some unrelated thoughts in my head, that I forget where I was headed in the first place until the computer says I've arrived. I've been "trained" that I don't have to think about certain details any more, and if taken too far then people try to drive over bridges that aren't there.

          Doing this, you are also slowly losing the ability to navigate yourself, when the need arises (battery dies, etc).. That's why I have the GPS only as the last resort. Especially going to new places I try to get the overview of the route and memorizing turn looking at the map. Not really that difficult, if one hasn't killed their ability with using too much GPS.

          Similarly, we (middle-aged people) used to remember easily 30-40 most frequently needed landline phone numbers, before mobile phones and their ph

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Shakrai ( 717556 )

            Similarly, we (middle-aged people) used to remember easily 30-40 most frequently needed landline phone numbers, before mobile phones and their phone books became the norm.

            I’m middle aged but have had a cell phone since I reached the age of majority. I memorized numbers, grew up on POTS (‘member when speed dial was a service you could pay for?), and early cell phones weren’t exactly intuitive when it came to fishing through contacts. The better ones would let you type letters via number pad and give increasingly narrower results, e.g., 72688 for "Scott". The really dope ones let you do this from the dialer without going to the contacts screen. Sadly, most

          • Doing this, you are also slowly losing the ability to navigate yourself, when the need arises (battery dies, etc)..

            I am aware of that. I keep an old road atlas in my vehicle just in case of some failure of navigation. Even so there's often very good signage marking the path to important destinations like hospitals, shopping centers, filling stations, police stations, libraries, stadiums and such for entertainment events, and so on. Finding an individual's home might be made difficult in this case but assuming I have an accurate address and the roads are marked in some numerical and/or alphabetical order then people c

        • I wish map apps had a single feature where if a route is within 5% travel time, but has fewer turns, suggest that route.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Ichijo ( 607641 )

        I mean, do people turn off their brains or something?

        Yes, it's called "distracted driving." They're trying to pay attention to the road while also trying to pay attention to the voice of the navigation system, and the cognitive burden of trying to do both at the same time is too great.

        At some point, I expect a nav system software vendor to argue that a crash wasn't their fault because the driver was distracted by their own nav system.

      • I see a number of Dunning-Kruger drivers in this thread. This was apparently at night, in the rain, in an unlit area, and on a route the driver was unfamiliar with. There was no barricade or warning that anything was wrong. In those conditions, I think it's a bit disingenuous to blame this on the driver in any way. That bridge was a deathtrap waiting to happen.

        As a side-note, I also know from personal experience how !@#$ hard it is to get a change through to Google Maps. The name of the park across my

        • Re:Personal Responsibility Be Damned (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Shakrai ( 717556 ) on Friday September 22, 2023 @03:22AM (#63867917) Journal

          I also know from personal experience how !@#$ hard it is to get a change through to Google Maps. The name of the park across my house was listed incorrectly.

          My employer has two offices. Our original/main campus and a newer (three years old) admin office in a different city. Google Maps keeps changing the admin location to the name of the business that owned the building before us and marks it "permanently closed". Then the autocorrect algorithm sends would be visitors to a similarly named but throughly unrelated business on the other side of town, 45 to 60 minutes away, depending on traffic.

          We submit corrections, they fix it, and a month later it’s "fixed" back to the former business. The best part is they demand photographic proof, which we provide, and said proof (picture of our sign with name/logo and building behind it) also exists in Street View. They could quickly verify this with their own data, yet here we are, Round #5 of this silly game. We’re not important enough to command five seconds of a human being’s attention at His Lordship Google and whatever automated algorithmic process they have in place is broken.

    • Re:Personal Responsibility Be Damned (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Misagon ( 1135 ) on Thursday September 21, 2023 @11:48PM (#63867607)

      > Seems far more the fault of the state/county for not blocking off the bridge to prevent such an event from happening.

      Did you even read the article? The owners of the bridge are also being sued.
      The barricades had been removed. The accident happened at 11 pm during a rainfall and there were no lightposts.
      These are the conditions in which accidents happen.

      I know not to trust Google maps to be accurate, because I follow the IT news on sites such as this, and so I know what attitude Google has towards map accuracy. The average Joe does not.
      But is always being shitty a viable defence?

    • Definitely the cognizant local gov't's fault. The barricades got stolen? How tough is it to back up a dump truck and dump a big load of sand on the approach to the non-existent bridge and block access? That's not gonna get stolen, either.

    • People seem to lose all common sense when following GPS directions. This is hardly the first case of such an event. Google maps is reasonably accurate for major highways and metropolitan areas, but once you get out in the country, it can be unreliable. It seems to be based on aerial maps that cannot always distinguish whether a road is passable or if it is not a public road. There seems to be a built-in human tendency to follow directions if they are given with enough authority, even if they are nonsens
    • Good Samaritan. Google maps are free to use with no guarantee of accuracy. I have an old car which has an old navigation map. So sometimes wrong. Dealer wants a hefty fee to update. Ironic since safety is a key marketing point for this car. Tough luck , the accident was caused by vandalism. Free maps help more than harm so a Samaritan exemption should be considered. Better warning labels on the map service too, warning might not be accurate drive like the oldie days before gps. Careful on unfamiliar terrai

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by lsllll ( 830002 )

        Google maps are free to use with no guarantee of accuracy.

        Not so fast. Yes, the base Android is open source, but Google's addons, like the App Store (or maps) aren't free. Manufacturers pay Google money for the Android Google maintains. Google makes money off all these apps.

    • Who owned the land the bridge was on, and who specifically removed and didn't replace the barricade? I think they deserve some blame in the death. (Even if it's BLM land or city land or whatnot.) If there were a bunch of nails in the road and everyone started getting flat tires, do you think it would be entirely the driver's fault and that the DOT of that particular state should get no blame?

    • I'm not a Google fan but I don't see how this is their fault

      If they lose, it's because they were notified that the road was out but did nothing about it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by adrn01 ( 103810 )
      Indeed. How hard or expensive would it have been to just dump a load of stones or gravel at each end of the bridge? Toss a few cans' worth of day-glo paint on the piles and the accident would never have happened.

    • Re:Personal Responsibility Be Damned (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anubis IV ( 1279820 ) on Friday September 22, 2023 @01:29AM (#63867787)

      A) This is less of a “how am I supposed to know to not hit pedestrians unless you tell me?” situation, and more of a “company knowingly allowed a defective, unsafe product remain on store shelves” situation.

      Goods and services generally have an obligation to be fit for their intended use. Google will tell you that they maintain an updated map service for public use. Google was notified multiple times over the course of the 9 years the bridge was out that the bridge had collapsed, yet failed to take action. Google itself had direct knowledge that the bridge was collapsed—Google’s own Street View cameras documented nearly a decade of pictures showing the collapsed bridge, with the latest being from May 2023 (none of which you can find now because Google removed the last 9 years of images once the suit hit the news)—yet failed to take action.

      In failing to maintain their data, Google allegedly acted negligently, no different than if you had failed to recall your physical product after numerous warnings that harm was imminent.

      B) Do others bear blame as well? Of course! The people who vandalized the barricades, causing them to be removed, bear blame. The city or workers who removed the vandalized barricades without replacing them bear blame. The city or owners of the land who failed to maintain their road, or at the very least illuminate the hazard, bear blame.

      C) And the driver, of course, bears blame. That said, it was 11pm on a rainy night on a road that lacked streetlights, and if you look at various pics the road appears fine from a distance because the guardrails are still intact and the 20 foot drop would have looked black—like a shallow puddle on a rainy night—until his headlights were close enough to illuminate the other side, at which point it’d likely be too late. And even if it wasn’t, there were trees and bushes across the road on the other side, drawing his attention away in the fraction of a second in which he might have been able to respond. Even at typically safe speeds, he’d have been hard-pressed to stop in time, especially so on rain slicked roads.

      It’s easy to blame the driver, but the fact is that any responsible, reasonable driver would’ve had difficulty avoiding that same outcome if put into that entirely avoidable situation.

      • Re:Personal Responsibility Be Damned (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Shakrai ( 717556 ) on Friday September 22, 2023 @02:30AM (#63867859) Journal

        Google’s own Street View cameras documented nearly a decade of pictures showing the collapsed bridge, with the latest being from May 2023 (none of which you can find now because Google removed the last 9 years of images once the suit hit the news)

        That’s called consciousness of guilt. Did whomever made that boneheaded decision check with legal? Even if plaintiff’s counsel failed to get copies beforehand it would have come out in discovery. Hiding it offers no benefit whatsoever. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

        • That’s called consciousness of guilt. Did whomever made that boneheaded decision check with legal? Even if plaintiff’s counsel failed to get copies beforehand it would have come out in discovery. Hiding it offers no benefit whatsoever. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

          My thought as well. You can still see images of the collapsed bridge from some distant angles, but yeah, I was chatting with someone earlier about this and the versions of the images he had specifically linked a few minutes earlier were gone by the time I got to them. Only images from a decade ago (pre-collapse) were left.

        • No one was conscious of it, the google street drivers weren't conscious it was a permanent outage, the computers aren't conscious period.

      • A) This is less of a âoehow am I supposed to know to not hit pedestrians unless you tell me?â situation, and more of a âoecompany knowingly allowed a defective, unsafe product remain on store shelvesâ situation.

        Hammers are far more dangerous than Google maps yet they remain on store shelves and unlike Google maps actually come with an implied warranty. Go figure.

        Goods and services generally have an obligation to be fit for their intended use.

        What exactly do you believe is "intended" and by whom? Google maps has never advertised itself to be perfect and infallible or meet any kind of defined quality standard. In fact the use of maps is explicitly "at your own risk".

        "When you use Google Maps/Google Earth's map data, traffic, directions, and other content, you may find that actual conditions d

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Shakrai ( 717556 )

          "When you use Google Maps/Google Earth's map data, traffic, directions, and other content, you may find that actual conditions differ from the map results and content, so exercise your independent judgment and use Google Maps/Google Earth at your own risk. Youâ(TM)re responsible at all times for your conduct and its consequences."

          That’s a long winded way of saying "Not responsible for broken windshields” and those signs don’t absolve someone of liability for negligence (unsecured load) either.

        • Another way of putting it... Why didn't anyone else after a decade of the bridge being broke suffer the same fate?

          They had just removed the barricades due to vandalism, making it possible for someone to act on Google’s directions for the first time. Sure enough: person dies shortly thereafter.

        • Hammers are far more dangerous than Google maps yet they remain on store shelves and unlike Google maps actually come with an implied warranty. Go figure.

          I recall an armed robbery being reported in the area some time ago, with the robber armed with hammers. If people believe that someone wielding a pair of hammers is "unarmed" then they've never hit their thumb with a hammer, or likely never lifted one.

          Also reported in the news was a charge of "assault on a peace officer with a deadly weapon". What weapon was used? An automobile.

          Looking at the size of the road and where it was at night in the rain... really hard to understand what possible "safe speed" could have resulted in the driver not noticing the absence of a bridge.

          Another way of putting it... Why didn't anyone else after a decade of the bridge being broke suffer the same fate?

          My guess is that the area sees so little traffic by people from outside the area that it took someone that is unfamiliar with th

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Google probably didn't want to act on the information for a couple of reasons.

        1. Trolls often report things are broken or closed when they aren't. Some do it for fun, others to try to reduce traffic in their neighbourhood.

        2. Even if Street View shows a broken bridge, most bridges get repaired and their cameras won't be visiting for another few years so they consider it a temporary problem.

        That's why Google only acts on more official data from local government and the like, or when they get a lot of reports

    • Google had the information for 2 years. They still directed someone to drive over the collapsed bridge.

    • Having a section of road missing is such a rare occurrence that unless you're in the Andes, nobody drives with "make sure the road isn't missing" as a criterium. You drive at a normal speed in the assumption that the road will continue.
      Depending on the road layout, you may not notice anything amiss until it's too late to avoid an accident.

  • And why are people in North Carolina allowed to drive a car while blind?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Luthair ( 847766 )

      Apparently its an unlit area at night. I can definitely imagine that even if one is paying complete attention that it would be pretty darn hard to recognize that there is a gap and brake in time. That said, I don't think this is on Google. One could remove GPS from the scenario and have precisely the same result.

      Sounds to me like the bridge maintainers are to blame here, if they aren't fixing the bridge then they really need permanent barriers so that "vanadals" can't remove them.

      • Sounds to me like the bridge maintainers are to blame here, if they aren't fixing the bridge then they really need permanent barriers so that "vanadals" can't remove them.

        In the article it mentions that they're part of the lawsuit, it's just that google is the "big boy" in the lawsuit, and this is slashdot so gets the attention.

      • Vandals seem more like murderers in that scenario.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by lsllll ( 830002 )
          Except the vandals didn't remove the barricades. So they're only guilty of vandalism. Whomever removed the barricades bears the brunt of this responsibility.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Calydor ( 739835 )

            Is there any description of what kind of vandalism the barricades suffered? Were they spraypainted with graffiti, or were they smashed to toothpicks?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by antdude ( 79039 )

      You mean anywhere beside NC.

    • And why are people in North Carolina allowed to drive a car while blind?

      I've been informed by ZZ Top that you can get arrested for driving while blind.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

      Pretty sure that if caught in the act of driving while blind that there will be an arrest rather than a mere warning or citation.

  • Might as well sue the Dukes of Hazard for the idea gone wrong while she's at it.

    • Might as well sue the Dukes of Hazard for the idea gone wrong while she's at it.

      I can overlook the mistake of placing Dukes of Hazzard in North Carolina rather than Georgia since the TV show didn't want to be specific on where the events took place but anyone that wants to claim to be a fan should know that it's "Hazzard" (with a double 'z') and not "Hazard" (single 'z').

      I agree that this lawsuit is without merit. Google has every interest to keep the maps accurate but it is still up to the driver to pay attention to road conditions, and for road maintenance crews to properly mark dan

  • i write tuning software for engines.
    someone uses my log analyzer and without paying attention, adjusts their throttle table so as soon as you touch the throttle its 100% and then kills a kid
    my fault?
    hows that different from Google maps in this case?
    makes me not want to make software anymore

    • False equivalence because Google Maps provides directions, but does not directly control the vehicle. The tuning software directly controls the engine throttle.

      Google Maps provides a service to the general public. "Someone," tuning software implies a single customer.

      Thanks for playing.

  • He had 2 kids who went home in the wife's other vehicle. They didn't Wylie Coyote off a bridge into the water.

    So many others already commented on the personal responsibility part, no need to pile on further.

    What the article doesn't say is who actually owns the bridge, only the land it sits on. It isn't clear if any of the 5 defendants have any responsibility at all for bridge maintenance.

  • The "Moron in a Hurry" doctrine is a legal phrase used in trademark disputes. Guess now it can be used in a liability case.
  • Obviously if a human actually got the report that the bridge was out, Google would have fixed the map. So the problem is that this didn't get in front of someone who could do it. The article claims they tried----so the problem is that whatever method they tried didn't work. That's what needs to be fixed.

  • google may need local guides to check map data issues and not someone in CA or maybe someone not even in the USA to be the one to be the map admin.

  • Look at the picture, imagine it in the dark with no lighting. Now it's still tempting to say, "there's all this greenery, it would show in your headlights". Sure it would, but what's the speed limit? You process that something is wrong. You hit the brakes, but if it was wet and had leaves on it (because nobody was driving there) you don't get as much traction. Such a scenario reminds me of the time I hit a suddenly un-plowed section after a snow storm, also at night. It was like a wall of white was co

    • If the scenario is that it's dark, and wet, why would you try to hit the speed limit? (Not a criticism of the driver in the story, just thinking about the first line of your scenario.)

      If you drive without being to stop within the distance you can see you'll hit trouble eventually.

  • Contributions to fault (Score:5, Informative)

    by craighansen ( 744648 ) on Friday September 22, 2023 @12:56AM (#63867741) Journal

    As in most disasters, a detailed analysis shows there were many things going wrong to contribute to the error. Reading through the legal complaint, and presuming it to be reasonably accurate, as well as looking at Google's map data myself, I'd tentatively observe:

    (1) The bridge washed out from a flood, obviously a defect, creating a hazard. (2) The owner, a private party, in control of the bridge never repaired the damage. (3) The barriers put up were of a temporary nature (frames not fastened in place, etc.), even though the bridge was a continuing hazard over a period of years. (4) One or more vandal(s) damaged the barriers in some unspecified way, (5) prompting the owner to remove the barriers for repair. (6) The owner left the hazard without any form of warning, including no warning signs in advance of the missing barriers, while the barriers were being repaired (7) it was a dark, and perhaps stormy night, with no lighting at the site (8) there are observable level changes in the road, which could have limited the visibility of the bridge-out condition (9) [a] Google maps chose a route over the bridge, even though [b] they were apparently notified at least twice that the bridge had been washed out, and [c] local GIS data indicated the route was interrupted at this location, and [d] other mapping systems that compete with Google had been updated, and [e] Google itself, when driving in the immediate area to update their Google images in 2019 for Google Street View, failed to photograph or update this road in 2019, perhaps demonstrating actual knowledge that the road segment should have been deleted in Google Maps. They did cover the road segment in 2012 for Google Street View, before the bridge was washed out in 2013.

    In fact, if you look closely on the 2019 Google Street View image, you can see down the road to the barriers.

    https://www.google.com/maps/@3... [google.com]

    The court will presumably weigh the magnitude of these and other contributing factors adjusted by the depth of each of the defendant's pockets. Google may have the deepest pockets, and may not be entirely blameless, but shouldn't be picking up the whole tab.

    • Looking at the picture in the article, the guardrails are still there, despite the bridge being washed out. This is also a contributing factor, giving the illusion that there is a proper road in place.

    • There were more pictures, including some from 2023. They removed them all from to before the bridge washed out after the lawsuit hit the news.

  • Artificial Intelligence Screwed up. (Score:3)

    by www.sorehands.com ( 142825 ) on Friday September 22, 2023 @02:47AM (#63867887) Homepage

    Google Maps knew it was south of the Masonâ"Dixon line. Since it was, it knew about the historical documents of the Dukes of Hazzard. Therefore, the AI determined that a bridge being out didn't bother a Southerner as a good Southerner would just jump the car as detailed in the historical documents.

    The AI didn't realize that all Southerners were not same.

  • I hope a judge throws it out, as this is just ridiculous. The man should have seen the broken bridge, and if someone is responsible, it's the county who removed the barricades, vandalized barricades are still better as none. Google can't be held responsible for someone not watching where he/she drives.

  • What if he used a paper map? (Score:3)

    by misnohmer ( 1636461 ) on Friday September 22, 2023 @06:00AM (#63868115)
    Are paper map printers liable for not issuing and sending out erratas to all owners of their maps for any road closure? Of course not. Google's liability for this is money back for whatever the driver paid Google to use their maps services, so probably a whopping $0.

    This case seems trivial. Whoever removed the barricades and/or signage that the bridge not safe is at fault. Google not reflecting it on their maps is irrelevant. Google was most likely included in the lawsuit because they are a large target and the victim's lawyers hope Google will settle. I personally hope Google fights this even if it costs more than settling. If the widow's lawyers made it an all or nothing, all defendants liable or none, then the widow should sue them after she loses.

  • Not a good route even if bridge is intact (Score:3)

    by billyswong ( 1858858 ) on Friday September 22, 2023 @02:24PM (#63869615)
    https://www.google.com/maps/@3... [google.com]

    If one switch to layer view and zoom out, one will be able to see that that tiny bridge is not a suitable route unless one's starting point or destination is a house close to that bridge. For going to/from anywhere else, there are wider and better roads, not this single-lane lane. Driving by people's homes unnecessarily at night is disturbing other people's sleep. If Google Map direct people to drive through there, it is bad advice even if the bridge is intact.

    Those maintenance guys probably think that bridge is so unimportant thus never bother to fix/rebuild it. According to Google Street View taken in 2019, if one drive from the North, along the way one can see signs "ROAD CLOSED TO THRU TRAFFIC", "ROAD CLOSED 1000FT", "ROAD CLOSED 500FT" until one reach that broken bridge. If one drive from the South, there is only "SUBDIVISION SPEED LIMIT 25 ALL STREETS". From the after-accident photo, the deceased driver looks likely drove from the North.

Slashdot Top Deals

Congratulations! You are the one-millionth user to log into our system. If there's anything special we can do for you, anything at all, don't hesitate to ask!

Close