5 ms·

Why partly on Google? In my opinion it is obvious that marking / blocking off unsafe roads should be the full responsibility of a public institution. They cann

by yreg 3y ago

Why partly on Google? In my opinion it is obvious that marking / blocking off unsafe roads should be the full responsibility of a public institution. They cannot hand over any part of that responsibility to Google. What if someone drove through there without using a navigation / map? What if someone drove through there using an offline satnav with outdated maps? I would hope Google (or OpenStreetMaps!) is not legally responsible to keep their maps 100% updated and accurate, since it's impossible to do that.

hef19898 3y ago
All car mounted navigation systems have the driver confirm, paraphrased, that they are aware the save operation of the vehicle is their sole responsibility.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
freejazz 3y ago
Because they knew they were directing drivers to a collapsed bridge for 2 years and did nothing about it. Sure enough, someone eventually went over it. There is no legal principle saying that both Google and the municipality can't be jointly liable.
- jjulius 3y ago
  Nine years, not two, according to the article.
  - debugnik 3y ago
    Two years prior they were notified of the issue by email. Nine years prior the bridge collapsed.
- cromwellian 3y ago
  What if the guy was using paper maps? If this was 30 years ago would paper nap publisher be liable? When you are driving, you’re responsible for being aware of the road. If you drive over a dangerous road that has no visible signs of it being dangerous, then it’s the government’s fault, or if a private road, the owner’s fault.
  - dfdsafsadf2 3y ago
    That's not really close to what's going on. There's the normal user's presumption that Google is up to date, for instance. And Google takes steps to fulfill that, for instance by providing live traffic data and other road hazards warnings. Not to mention that people stepped forward with evidence saying they informed Google. Whether that nuance really matters is up to the courts I guess. But I don't think this is in the same ballpark as a decades-old map where the average user wouldn't presume it's up to date.
    - yreg 3y ago
      >normal user's presumption that Google is up to date I don't think that's a reasonable presumption. I have experienced Google maps being inaccurate countless times and surely so have the others. I doubt Google guarantees in any way that the maps are up to date and it would be unreasonable to expect that. What is, however, reasonable to expect — is that the government blocks the road to a collapsed bridge.
      - freejazz 3y ago
        The issue isn't people's expectations. The issue is that google was on notice that it was sending people to a collapsed bridge and didn't stop. Upon some reflection, I'm sure you can come up with some reasons why there is an appreciable legal difference between the two. I think there is also a difference between what you are characterizing that people expect as "a presumption that Google is up to date" which just seems like a trivializing abstraction from the more specific point that people would not expect google to provide hazardous instructions. >What is, however, reasonable to expect — is that the government blocks the road to a collapsed bridge. That's completely besides the point because they can both be liable. So saying that the gov't has fault doesn't rebut that Google does too. After all, the gov't was not the proximate cause of the incident, as they did not send him over the bridge, that was Google. It's a bit obnoxious when people come on here to argue about negligence while completely ignoring what negligence entails, the distinctions in how it operates, etc, while pretending they are keyboard attorneys.
tass 3y ago
Negligent in updating maps that they were being warned about over years. I don't personally believe this makes them liable, though. I think liability of this is complex being that it's unclear to me who owns the bridge and road leading to it, as well as how obvious it is to a driver that they shouldn't have been driving on that road. There shouldn't need to be a wall preventing drivers from flying off every cliff, but if there was a normal-looking road leading off the edge it's a little different.

by yreg 3y ago

hef19898 3y ago

All car mounted navigation systems have the driver confirm, paraphrased, that they are aware the save operation of the vehicle is their sole responsibility.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

freejazz 3y ago

Because they knew they were directing drivers to a collapsed bridge for 2 years and did nothing about it. Sure enough, someone eventually went over it. There is no legal principle saying that both Google and the municipality can't be jointly liable.

jjulius 3y ago
Nine years, not two, according to the article.
- debugnik 3y ago
  Two years prior they were notified of the issue by email. Nine years prior the bridge collapsed.
cromwellian 3y ago
What if the guy was using paper maps? If this was 30 years ago would paper nap publisher be liable? When you are driving, you’re responsible for being aware of the road. If you drive over a dangerous road that has no visible signs of it being dangerous, then it’s the government’s fault, or if a private road, the owner’s fault.
- dfdsafsadf2 3y ago
  That's not really close to what's going on. There's the normal user's presumption that Google is up to date, for instance. And Google takes steps to fulfill that, for instance by providing live traffic data and other road hazards warnings. Not to mention that people stepped forward with evidence saying they informed Google. Whether that nuance really matters is up to the courts I guess. But I don't think this is in the same ballpark as a decades-old map where the average user wouldn't presume it's up to date.
  - yreg 3y ago
    >normal user's presumption that Google is up to date I don't think that's a reasonable presumption. I have experienced Google maps being inaccurate countless times and surely so have the others. I doubt Google guarantees in any way that the maps are up to date and it would be unreasonable to expect that. What is, however, reasonable to expect — is that the government blocks the road to a collapsed bridge.
    - freejazz 3y ago
      The issue isn't people's expectations. The issue is that google was on notice that it was sending people to a collapsed bridge and didn't stop. Upon some reflection, I'm sure you can come up with some reasons why there is an appreciable legal difference between the two. I think there is also a difference between what you are characterizing that people expect as "a presumption that Google is up to date" which just seems like a trivializing abstraction from the more specific point that people would not expect google to provide hazardous instructions. >What is, however, reasonable to expect — is that the government blocks the road to a collapsed bridge. That's completely besides the point because they can both be liable. So saying that the gov't has fault doesn't rebut that Google does too. After all, the gov't was not the proximate cause of the incident, as they did not send him over the bridge, that was Google. It's a bit obnoxious when people come on here to argue about negligence while completely ignoring what negligence entails, the distinctions in how it operates, etc, while pretending they are keyboard attorneys.

tass 3y ago

Negligent in updating maps that they were being warned about over years. I don't personally believe this makes them liable, though. I think liability of this is complex being that it's unclear to me who owns the bridge and road leading to it, as well as how obvious it is to a driver that they shouldn't have been driving on that road. There shouldn't need to be a wall preventing drivers from flying off every cliff, but if there was a normal-looking road leading off the edge it's a little different.