8 ms·

https://www.google.com/help/terms_maps/ https://www.google.com/help/terms_maps/ > Actual Conditions; Assumption of Risk. When you use Google Maps/Google Earth'

https://www.google.com/help/terms_maps/ https://www.google.com/help/terms_maps/ > Actual Conditions; Assumption of Risk. 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. You’re responsible at all times for your conduct and its consequences. this seems very obvious to me? i imagine "state of north carolina sued for allowing a dangerous abandoned bridge to stay connected to the public system" wouldn't make a nice juicy headline (and i imagine the state of north carolina has less money to throw at random lawsuits)

7e 3y ago
Are you an attorney or judge?
- loco5niner 3y ago
  He's suggesting that everyday people should just use their noggin, and that's basically what the terms are saying too.
  - 7e 3y ago
    That’s a presumptuous statement. The crash occurred at night in very poor weather. It was likely impossible to see the missing half of the bridge under those conditions. Everyone already uses common sense. That’s why it’s called common sense. Negligence is something else, and we can’t blame the victim without hearing all the facts here.
    - WalterBright 3y ago
      > impossible to see the missing half of the bridge If you can't see the road ahead as far as your stopping distance, you are negligent. If you are not watching the road ahead, you are negligent.
      - Retric 3y ago
        Headlights let you see objects on the road in time to stop, but don’t necessarily allow you to distinguish holes. If that’s the standard then driving at night is reckless behavior.
        WalterBright 3y ago
        I stand by what I wrote. If you are overdriving your headlights, you are driving negligently. You're the driver, you are responsible for looking where you're going. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
        Retric 3y ago
        I agree overdriving your headlights is reckless, however remaining stationary isn’t enough to distinguish one black void from another. This is a function of the limits on vision not speed.
        eggy 3y ago
        Which is why the municipality should be liable for not properly closing off the road well before the bridge crossing, and putting a big, red and white reflective striped fence several feet before the edge visible from a distance after the road closing as a second barrier/sighted warning.
        Retric 3y ago
        In theory absolutely, but that doesn’t mean you can actually sue. “In United States law, state, federal and tribal governments generally enjoy immunity from lawsuits.[48] Local governments typically enjoy immunity from some forms of suit, particularly in tort.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity
        WalterBright 3y ago
        If you can't see, pull over. This isn't rocket science.
  - notacoward 3y ago
    Yes, everyday people should use their noggins, but there are things that go beyond what those everyday people would expect and anyone who does those things can still be liable. Courts have upheld this "reasonable expectation" standard again and again and again, literally every day, and it's not hard to see why. If "use your noggin" was a foolproof defense, explicitly in the TOS or otherwise, companies literally couldn't be held liable for anything. That's clearly insane, so the line has to be drawn somewhere else and it has been drawn at reasonable expectation.
  - PeterisP 3y ago
    Terms&conditions are not law, and deciding whether 'terms clearly say X' actually implies 'X' (or if those are just empty words, as many clauses are) does take some legal knowledge.
lern_too_spel 3y ago
Waivers don't protect against negligence.
- dathinab 3y ago
  yes but the neglience was presenting a route which doesn't exist which isn't anywhere close to killing someone what killed that person is whatever allowed them to drive onto a collapsed bridge without noticing it where I live this bridge would have been fenced of, and not just with some easy to remove by trolls fences but (with construction vehicles) movable concrete barricades or larger wooden logs depending on the area
  - danaris 3y ago
    I think that it's very reasonable to argue that explicitly telling someone to take steps that will kill them is, at best, grossly negligent. The fact that it required other, completely unrelated, lines of defense to fail for the victim to be able to follow those steps all the way does not in any way absolve Google of responsibility here.
    - dathinab 3y ago
      but in any sane road network this steps will _not_ kill anyone because any sane road network doesn't contain death traps it's not the responsibility of any 3rd party map service to close up death traps in a road network it's the responsibility of whoever maintains that network additionally I would say it's the responsibility of the same institute to publish information about road network changes like closures for maintenance or due to damages, I mean if even the people which sole job it is to maintain the road network don't know if a street is closed off or not (ignoring spontaneous changes) how is some 3rd party then supposed to know (some exceptions to off road roads which frequently might be closed of by weather and in general often can't be taken with normal cars and always have warning signs etc.) I mean would you have said the same if the bridge just broke a week ago? Or if it would have been a different card service like OpenStreetMaps? Or if they had used a card service where you need to buy map updates and they handn't done so yet? The safety of traffic participant _must never ever_ depend on the navy system they are using. But this also means that you hardly ever can fault a map service for stuff like that. ( I mean if it tries to rout your multi day road trip through a desert that's a different matter.)
freejazz 3y ago
>this seems very obvious to me? That the terms say that? Who is disputing that? It's completely besides the point of whether or not that term carries legal wait. You can't have someone waive away your duty to not be grossly negligent. Speaking of obvious: "The Tuesday court filing includes email records from another Hickory resident who had used the map’s “suggest an edit” feature in September 2020 to alert the company that it was directing drivers over the collapsed bridge. A November 2020 email confirmation from Google confirms the company received her report and was reviewing the suggested change, but the lawsuit claims Google took no further actions." They had been on notice for ~2 years that they were directing people towards a collapsed bridge. I find it concerning the way some people respond to this issue, and the general concept of negligence, as it speaks towards their views on how we should treat others.
- travoc 3y ago
  But the automation that declined the edit suggestion saved Google 37 cents in manual labor.
  - jtbayly 3y ago
    It would be interesting if this was the case that blew up Google's model of forcing everything to be "decided" by a computer, refusing to allow humans to be involved.
mrtksn 3y ago
It's obvious but probably you can't escape responsibility by just writing it on the terms and conditions if you are responsible for something. What if they put "we are not responsible for anything, use your judgement" on every product and sell dangerous products? I mean, IMHO they should be able to do that if they warn you properly(not just in the legal text) but that's just my opinion. Is Google Maps responsible? I don't know but I can imagine someone claiming it due to the way information is displayed on the UI. Google maps always shows the information from position of authority, they are always very sure about the information they have and you don't have a clue about how certain they are bout what they tell you. I had multiple situations where Google Maps will direct me very confidently to roads that don't exist and once I had to stop and investigate if the road that Google Maps insist on is viable and the other time I had to turn back as the road conditions deteriorated from SUV-needed to T-80 tank needed. Negligent local authorities combined with authoritative assistant who is wrong and can't tell its wrong can be dangerous. Maybe a UI with more clear communications is needed?
- aeurielesn 3y ago
  I'm actually at odds at what's Google responsible for exactly. Google isn't paid by the county to provide this service nor Google Maps is a paid service. My first thought was it's the county's fault.
  - mrtksn 3y ago
    There can be multiple parties responsible, the county looks like definitely responsible(or not, if it's not an infra where they are responsible to maintain?) but Google can be too. Google Maps is not a free product at all, it's a commercial product provided for free as part of an ad business. It's free as the free soda with the hamburger.
  - bmitc 3y ago
    Google offers the service as instructions for how to get somewhere. Google and these other tech companies hide behind excuses that claim these systems are so complex and scaled that they can't possibly be responsible for when they're wrong. But it is they, as in Google, that built, offer, market, and implicitly claim it all works, not the people. Then they cowardly bury in the terms and conditions that it can't be trusted. I am all for tech companies being held liable for what they market. Especially here, because at the end of the day, Google doesn't even care about providing you directions They just want your data that they can resell. But that's not how they market Google Maps. I also think the county should be responsible, but that is in addition.
zyang 3y ago
It's up to the judicial process to decide if Google is liable or not. But in my opinion the county is most at fault here for not blocking off the road. It's an odd choice to go after Google since they have world class lawyers and the case would open a floodgate of lawsuits for Google.
- bacchusracine 3y ago
  >an odd choice to go after Google since they have world class lawyers Steve Dallas lawsuit?
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  Google is a deep-pockets target that doesn't have the problem of the range of immunities that must be navigated around in suing a state. Not at all an odd target.
  - bleah1000 3y ago
    But that assumes that Google would settle. Without that happening, you are looking at years before getting a result, thousands of dollars of attorney fees and a high likelihood that if they lost they would appeal. This might be more of an emotional lawsuit than a logical one.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > But that assumes that Google would settle. Which is a not unreasonable assumption. It doesn't take much before Google's cost outstrip the cost of settlement, and even if it were to prevail in court it probably wouldn't recover costs > Without that happening, you are looking at years before getting a result, thousands of dollars of attorney fees and a high likelihood that if they lost they would appeal. Yes, it will take time if the other side doesn't settle, that's rather the norm in lawsuits. But its reasonably likely there is a contingency fee arrangement in olace, meaning the lawyers get paid with and out of any settlement or judgement. > This might be more of an emotional lawsuit than a logical one That's always possible, but you haven't really done much to argue for it being likely.
dfdsafsadf2 3y ago
> Actual Conditions; You owe me one million dollars. Counterpoint: For every person who reads this post, namdnay must mail me $1 million USD. By reading this post you agree to these terms.
Merad 3y ago
The bridge in question is about a mile from my house. I'm pretty sure the road it's on is not publicly maintained, as it's just a street within a neighborhood. And that's a neighborhood that doesn't have a HOA, so I don't know if anyone is actually legally responsible for maintaining the road or bridge.
- jedberg 3y ago
  There is always someone responsible. If it's private land, there is an owner of the land. If it's public land, then at the very least the county or city is responsible.
  - cool_dude85 3y ago
    Well, the land is owned by Strip of Land Holdings 123. But they have a contractual relationship with Bridges 876 Inc to maintain the bridge, and the owners of Bridges 876 Inc are to be found at a PO box in the Cayman Islands. Hang around outside the post office down there long enough and I'm sure you'll see the owners pop up.
    - jedberg 3y ago
      No one would care about Bridges 876. They would sue Strip of Land Holdings 123 as the owner of the property, and SoLH123 would have to send someone to represent them in court. If they didn't, the would loose, and then loose their land in the judgement. Eventually the person would be made whole somehow, and the responsible person would be found.
      - HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
        You are correct, but /u/cool_dude85 is making a movie reference to a chain of holding companies created to obfuscate ownership to avoid just this situation.
        quazar 3y ago
ReptileMan 3y ago
If the article is correct google have had for years warnings that this bridge has collapsed. Now - of course the ultimate responsibility is to the driver because - you have eyes. Then it is to the myriad of people who have not put a traffic cone there. And lastly is to google for not updating their database.
- BubbleRings 3y ago
  > Then it is to the myriad of people who have not put a traffic cone there. This. I find it incredible and sad.
lenkite 3y ago
Yeah no - if multiple people reported this issue to Google Maps and no action was taken, then personally I consider Google eminently sue-able. I would say that most personal injury lawsuits would take this into account.
switch007 3y ago
If I ever see a negative post about Google, and the top comment /isn’t/ defending Google, I will eat my hat

7e 3y ago

Are you an attorney or judge?

loco5niner 3y ago
He's suggesting that everyday people should just use their noggin, and that's basically what the terms are saying too.
- 7e 3y ago
  That’s a presumptuous statement. The crash occurred at night in very poor weather. It was likely impossible to see the missing half of the bridge under those conditions. Everyone already uses common sense. That’s why it’s called common sense. Negligence is something else, and we can’t blame the victim without hearing all the facts here.
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    > impossible to see the missing half of the bridge If you can't see the road ahead as far as your stopping distance, you are negligent. If you are not watching the road ahead, you are negligent.
    - Retric 3y ago
      Headlights let you see objects on the road in time to stop, but don’t necessarily allow you to distinguish holes. If that’s the standard then driving at night is reckless behavior.
      - WalterBright 3y ago
        I stand by what I wrote. If you are overdriving your headlights, you are driving negligently. You're the driver, you are responsible for looking where you're going. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
        Retric 3y ago
        I agree overdriving your headlights is reckless, however remaining stationary isn’t enough to distinguish one black void from another. This is a function of the limits on vision not speed.
        eggy 3y ago
        Which is why the municipality should be liable for not properly closing off the road well before the bridge crossing, and putting a big, red and white reflective striped fence several feet before the edge visible from a distance after the road closing as a second barrier/sighted warning.
        Retric 3y ago
        In theory absolutely, but that doesn’t mean you can actually sue. “In United States law, state, federal and tribal governments generally enjoy immunity from lawsuits.[48] Local governments typically enjoy immunity from some forms of suit, particularly in tort.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity
        WalterBright 3y ago
        If you can't see, pull over. This isn't rocket science.
- notacoward 3y ago
  Yes, everyday people should use their noggins, but there are things that go beyond what those everyday people would expect and anyone who does those things can still be liable. Courts have upheld this "reasonable expectation" standard again and again and again, literally every day, and it's not hard to see why. If "use your noggin" was a foolproof defense, explicitly in the TOS or otherwise, companies literally couldn't be held liable for anything. That's clearly insane, so the line has to be drawn somewhere else and it has been drawn at reasonable expectation.
- PeterisP 3y ago
  Terms&conditions are not law, and deciding whether 'terms clearly say X' actually implies 'X' (or if those are just empty words, as many clauses are) does take some legal knowledge.

lern_too_spel 3y ago

Waivers don't protect against negligence.

dathinab 3y ago
yes but the neglience was presenting a route which doesn't exist which isn't anywhere close to killing someone what killed that person is whatever allowed them to drive onto a collapsed bridge without noticing it where I live this bridge would have been fenced of, and not just with some easy to remove by trolls fences but (with construction vehicles) movable concrete barricades or larger wooden logs depending on the area
- danaris 3y ago
  I think that it's very reasonable to argue that explicitly telling someone to take steps that will kill them is, at best, grossly negligent. The fact that it required other, completely unrelated, lines of defense to fail for the victim to be able to follow those steps all the way does not in any way absolve Google of responsibility here.
  - dathinab 3y ago
    but in any sane road network this steps will _not_ kill anyone because any sane road network doesn't contain death traps it's not the responsibility of any 3rd party map service to close up death traps in a road network it's the responsibility of whoever maintains that network additionally I would say it's the responsibility of the same institute to publish information about road network changes like closures for maintenance or due to damages, I mean if even the people which sole job it is to maintain the road network don't know if a street is closed off or not (ignoring spontaneous changes) how is some 3rd party then supposed to know (some exceptions to off road roads which frequently might be closed of by weather and in general often can't be taken with normal cars and always have warning signs etc.) I mean would you have said the same if the bridge just broke a week ago? Or if it would have been a different card service like OpenStreetMaps? Or if they had used a card service where you need to buy map updates and they handn't done so yet? The safety of traffic participant _must never ever_ depend on the navy system they are using. But this also means that you hardly ever can fault a map service for stuff like that. ( I mean if it tries to rout your multi day road trip through a desert that's a different matter.)

freejazz 3y ago

>this seems very obvious to me? That the terms say that? Who is disputing that? It's completely besides the point of whether or not that term carries legal wait. You can't have someone waive away your duty to not be grossly negligent. Speaking of obvious: "The Tuesday court filing includes email records from another Hickory resident who had used the map’s “suggest an edit” feature in September 2020 to alert the company that it was directing drivers over the collapsed bridge. A November 2020 email confirmation from Google confirms the company received her report and was reviewing the suggested change, but the lawsuit claims Google took no further actions." They had been on notice for ~2 years that they were directing people towards a collapsed bridge. I find it concerning the way some people respond to this issue, and the general concept of negligence, as it speaks towards their views on how we should treat others.

travoc 3y ago
But the automation that declined the edit suggestion saved Google 37 cents in manual labor.
- jtbayly 3y ago
  It would be interesting if this was the case that blew up Google's model of forcing everything to be "decided" by a computer, refusing to allow humans to be involved.

mrtksn 3y ago

It's obvious but probably you can't escape responsibility by just writing it on the terms and conditions if you are responsible for something. What if they put "we are not responsible for anything, use your judgement" on every product and sell dangerous products? I mean, IMHO they should be able to do that if they warn you properly(not just in the legal text) but that's just my opinion. Is Google Maps responsible? I don't know but I can imagine someone claiming it due to the way information is displayed on the UI. Google maps always shows the information from position of authority, they are always very sure about the information they have and you don't have a clue about how certain they are bout what they tell you. I had multiple situations where Google Maps will direct me very confidently to roads that don't exist and once I had to stop and investigate if the road that Google Maps insist on is viable and the other time I had to turn back as the road conditions deteriorated from SUV-needed to T-80 tank needed. Negligent local authorities combined with authoritative assistant who is wrong and can't tell its wrong can be dangerous. Maybe a UI with more clear communications is needed?

aeurielesn 3y ago
I'm actually at odds at what's Google responsible for exactly. Google isn't paid by the county to provide this service nor Google Maps is a paid service. My first thought was it's the county's fault.
- mrtksn 3y ago
  There can be multiple parties responsible, the county looks like definitely responsible(or not, if it's not an infra where they are responsible to maintain?) but Google can be too. Google Maps is not a free product at all, it's a commercial product provided for free as part of an ad business. It's free as the free soda with the hamburger.
- bmitc 3y ago
  Google offers the service as instructions for how to get somewhere. Google and these other tech companies hide behind excuses that claim these systems are so complex and scaled that they can't possibly be responsible for when they're wrong. But it is they, as in Google, that built, offer, market, and implicitly claim it all works, not the people. Then they cowardly bury in the terms and conditions that it can't be trusted. I am all for tech companies being held liable for what they market. Especially here, because at the end of the day, Google doesn't even care about providing you directions They just want your data that they can resell. But that's not how they market Google Maps. I also think the county should be responsible, but that is in addition.

zyang 3y ago

It's up to the judicial process to decide if Google is liable or not. But in my opinion the county is most at fault here for not blocking off the road. It's an odd choice to go after Google since they have world class lawyers and the case would open a floodgate of lawsuits for Google.

bacchusracine 3y ago
>an odd choice to go after Google since they have world class lawyers Steve Dallas lawsuit?
dragonwriter 3y ago
Google is a deep-pockets target that doesn't have the problem of the range of immunities that must be navigated around in suing a state. Not at all an odd target.
- bleah1000 3y ago
  But that assumes that Google would settle. Without that happening, you are looking at years before getting a result, thousands of dollars of attorney fees and a high likelihood that if they lost they would appeal. This might be more of an emotional lawsuit than a logical one.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > But that assumes that Google would settle. Which is a not unreasonable assumption. It doesn't take much before Google's cost outstrip the cost of settlement, and even if it were to prevail in court it probably wouldn't recover costs > Without that happening, you are looking at years before getting a result, thousands of dollars of attorney fees and a high likelihood that if they lost they would appeal. Yes, it will take time if the other side doesn't settle, that's rather the norm in lawsuits. But its reasonably likely there is a contingency fee arrangement in olace, meaning the lawyers get paid with and out of any settlement or judgement. > This might be more of an emotional lawsuit than a logical one That's always possible, but you haven't really done much to argue for it being likely.

dfdsafsadf2 3y ago

> Actual Conditions; You owe me one million dollars. Counterpoint: For every person who reads this post, namdnay must mail me $1 million USD. By reading this post you agree to these terms.

Merad 3y ago

The bridge in question is about a mile from my house. I'm pretty sure the road it's on is not publicly maintained, as it's just a street within a neighborhood. And that's a neighborhood that doesn't have a HOA, so I don't know if anyone is actually legally responsible for maintaining the road or bridge.

jedberg 3y ago
There is always someone responsible. If it's private land, there is an owner of the land. If it's public land, then at the very least the county or city is responsible.
- cool_dude85 3y ago
  Well, the land is owned by Strip of Land Holdings 123. But they have a contractual relationship with Bridges 876 Inc to maintain the bridge, and the owners of Bridges 876 Inc are to be found at a PO box in the Cayman Islands. Hang around outside the post office down there long enough and I'm sure you'll see the owners pop up.
  - jedberg 3y ago
    No one would care about Bridges 876. They would sue Strip of Land Holdings 123 as the owner of the property, and SoLH123 would have to send someone to represent them in court. If they didn't, the would loose, and then loose their land in the judgement. Eventually the person would be made whole somehow, and the responsible person would be found.
    - HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
      You are correct, but /u/cool_dude85 is making a movie reference to a chain of holding companies created to obfuscate ownership to avoid just this situation.
      - quazar 3y ago

ReptileMan 3y ago

If the article is correct google have had for years warnings that this bridge has collapsed. Now - of course the ultimate responsibility is to the driver because - you have eyes. Then it is to the myriad of people who have not put a traffic cone there. And lastly is to google for not updating their database.

BubbleRings 3y ago
> Then it is to the myriad of people who have not put a traffic cone there. This. I find it incredible and sad.

lenkite 3y ago

Yeah no - if multiple people reported this issue to Google Maps and no action was taken, then personally I consider Google eminently sue-able. I would say that most personal injury lawsuits would take this into account.

switch007 3y ago

If I ever see a negative post about Google, and the top comment /isn’t/ defending Google, I will eat my hat