5 ms·

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

by 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.
    - pixl97 3y ago
      >> But that assumes that Google would settle. >Which is a not unreasonable assumption Not sure about Google, but companies like Walmart never settle. For them it's better to have the lawyers tell you "Oh, you're going after Wally, well, that's going to be the next 10 years of your life wasted", then it is to worry about the per litigation costs.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        > Not sure about Google, but companies like Walmart never settle. This is simply false. While Walmart is aggressive, they do settle. What Walmart does which masks this is, where they have they have the leverage to do so, as they usually do with individual plaintiffs that actually are concerned about financial compensation, insist in strict confidentiality terms in settlements which makes them unlikely to be reported. But even that doesn't cover everything, and there are noteworthy publicly reported settlements. https://www.millerandzois.com/wal-mart-injury-settlements.html https://www.millerandzois.com/wal-mart-injury-settlements.ht...
  - Yeul 3y ago
    No cure no pay lawyers fix that. Some ambulance chasing law degree scumbag will take the bet.
  - ajdude 3y ago
    > But that assumes that Google would settle. See also: Google settles account settings lawsuit less than one week after being filed [pdf] (ca.gov) 174 points by 1vuio0pswjnm7 3 days ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37582565 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37582565
jedberg 3y ago
When you file a lawsuit you generally name anyone you can possibly imagine being associated, and then let the courts dismiss people. I've been named in a lawsuit before, where my contractor's employee was suing my contractor for non-payment on a job (not my job), but named me in the case anyway since my job was going on at the same time. I just went to court prepared to defend myself and the first thing the judge did was ask why I was named in the suit. Then I was promptly dismissed from the suit but asked to stay as a witness.
shadowgovt 3y ago
It may be worth it to the family to take the gamble that Google would rather settle than go through a discovery process that puts their auditing process (a trade secret) in the public record.
adrianmonk 3y ago
Maybe they're hoping Google will settle out of court. If they settle, they avoid the risk of setting the legal precedent they don't want. That might be worth the money to them. The family could also just be doing it on principle. If Google had made the updates, the man would probably be alive today because he wouldn't have known about this (non-)route, so they may feel like Google shares some blame. The lawsuit and/or bad PR could motivate Google to make some kind of change, like better training or better support in their problem reporting system for tracking and prioritizing corrections related to safety.
- cm2187 3y ago
  Not sure what legal precedent it could set. A driver is ultimately responsible for where he drives. “Someone told me to drive into that wall” isn’t going to stand in any court.
  - adrianmonk 3y ago
    It sets one precedent if you win and another if you lose. No matter how strong your case, there's never a guarantee you will win.
jonas21 3y ago
Would we be discussing it here on HN if Google were not named in the suit? Would anyone other than the local newspaper have written about it? Probably not. But there are currently over 1200 articles on this, including national and international coverage, and that publicity is probably very helpful for the lawsuit.
- dundarious 3y ago
  People who don't have/use Google Maps may die in a similar way, given the lack of physical infrastructure to block the route. What does increased notoriety about a mistargeted lawsuit against Google do to assist? To be clear, I think Google is not without blame, but the primary apportionment belongs to local road/bridge management, because fixing Google Maps alone would in no way be sufficiently safe, but fixing the physical infrastructure of the route would.
in_cahoots 3y ago
Google is just one of the parties they are suing, it looks like they are also suing the local government and the landowner (the bridge is on private property).
danaris 3y ago
In another article I read about this earlier today, it said that the signs blocking the bridge had been removed by vandals.

by zyang 3y ago

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.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    >> But that assumes that Google would settle. >Which is a not unreasonable assumption Not sure about Google, but companies like Walmart never settle. For them it's better to have the lawyers tell you "Oh, you're going after Wally, well, that's going to be the next 10 years of your life wasted", then it is to worry about the per litigation costs.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > Not sure about Google, but companies like Walmart never settle. This is simply false. While Walmart is aggressive, they do settle. What Walmart does which masks this is, where they have they have the leverage to do so, as they usually do with individual plaintiffs that actually are concerned about financial compensation, insist in strict confidentiality terms in settlements which makes them unlikely to be reported. But even that doesn't cover everything, and there are noteworthy publicly reported settlements. https://www.millerandzois.com/wal-mart-injury-settlements.html https://www.millerandzois.com/wal-mart-injury-settlements.ht...
- Yeul 3y ago
  No cure no pay lawyers fix that. Some ambulance chasing law degree scumbag will take the bet.
- ajdude 3y ago
  > But that assumes that Google would settle. See also: Google settles account settings lawsuit less than one week after being filed [pdf] (ca.gov) 174 points by 1vuio0pswjnm7 3 days ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37582565 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37582565

jedberg 3y ago

When you file a lawsuit you generally name anyone you can possibly imagine being associated, and then let the courts dismiss people. I've been named in a lawsuit before, where my contractor's employee was suing my contractor for non-payment on a job (not my job), but named me in the case anyway since my job was going on at the same time. I just went to court prepared to defend myself and the first thing the judge did was ask why I was named in the suit. Then I was promptly dismissed from the suit but asked to stay as a witness.

shadowgovt 3y ago

It may be worth it to the family to take the gamble that Google would rather settle than go through a discovery process that puts their auditing process (a trade secret) in the public record.

adrianmonk 3y ago

Maybe they're hoping Google will settle out of court. If they settle, they avoid the risk of setting the legal precedent they don't want. That might be worth the money to them. The family could also just be doing it on principle. If Google had made the updates, the man would probably be alive today because he wouldn't have known about this (non-)route, so they may feel like Google shares some blame. The lawsuit and/or bad PR could motivate Google to make some kind of change, like better training or better support in their problem reporting system for tracking and prioritizing corrections related to safety.

cm2187 3y ago
Not sure what legal precedent it could set. A driver is ultimately responsible for where he drives. “Someone told me to drive into that wall” isn’t going to stand in any court.
- adrianmonk 3y ago
  It sets one precedent if you win and another if you lose. No matter how strong your case, there's never a guarantee you will win.

jonas21 3y ago

Would we be discussing it here on HN if Google were not named in the suit? Would anyone other than the local newspaper have written about it? Probably not. But there are currently over 1200 articles on this, including national and international coverage, and that publicity is probably very helpful for the lawsuit.

dundarious 3y ago
People who don't have/use Google Maps may die in a similar way, given the lack of physical infrastructure to block the route. What does increased notoriety about a mistargeted lawsuit against Google do to assist? To be clear, I think Google is not without blame, but the primary apportionment belongs to local road/bridge management, because fixing Google Maps alone would in no way be sufficiently safe, but fixing the physical infrastructure of the route would.

in_cahoots 3y ago

Google is just one of the parties they are suing, it looks like they are also suing the local government and the landowner (the bridge is on private property).

danaris 3y ago

In another article I read about this earlier today, it said that the signs blocking the bridge had been removed by vandals.