Pedestrian Follows Google Map, Gets Run Over, Sues 699
Hugh Pickens writes "The Toronto Star reports that a Utah woman is suing Google for more than $100,000 in damages, claiming its maps function gave her walking directions that led her onto a major highway, where she was struck by a car. Lauren Rosenberg sought directions between two addresses in Utah about 3 kilometers apart and the top result suggested that she follow a busy rural highway for several hundred meters. The highway did not have sidewalks or any other pedestrian-friendly amenities, and Rosenberg was struck by a car. Rosenberg filed suit against both the driver of the car that struck her and Google, claiming both carried responsibility in her injury. Her lawyers claim Google is liable because it did not warn her that the route would not offer a safe place for a pedestrian to walk. Google has pointed out that the directions Rosenberg sought come with a warning of caution for pedestrians, but Rosenberg claims that she accessed the Maps function on her Blackberry mobile device, where it did not include the warning."
For serious? (Score:5, Insightful)
Um. (Score:5, Insightful)
So.... (Score:3, Insightful)
No personal responsibility at all involved here? I can see how the driver is liable, but Google? Psht.
Nobody's perfect (Score:4, Insightful)
And I'm Going to Sue Darwin (Score:5, Insightful)
not a darwin award winner (Score:5, Insightful)
but sooo close. maybe next time. Please try again!
My mom taught me not to walk/play in traffic when I was four. Maybe this gal should sue her parents too?
Really? (Score:2, Insightful)
Woman needs to learn how to walk down the road. I'm a college student. I'm poor. I walk down major highways all the time and voila, I don't get hit by a car. I see people do it all the time, and voila, they don't get hit by a car.
I think this woman was just stupid and wanted someone to blame for her own ignorance.
stupid people (Score:5, Insightful)
Now I'll admit it's terrible that she got hurt, but let's face it, how stupid could she be to blindly follow a map into traffic?
What if a fire had engulfed the area, would she have walked into that just because a map shows that as a viable route?
I don't know about you, but I tend to avoid getting in the way of high speed multi-ton solid objects, I understand about inertia and kinetic impacts.
Guess she should sue her parents for neglecting to teach her not to walk on roads with traffic. Or perhaps for not making sure her, as an adult, didn't do something so stupid, and then have the audacity to blame someone else for her death-wish activities.
Re:Um. (Score:5, Insightful)
In my opinion she has the right to be refunded all the money she paid for using google maps.
Re:So.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope that your locale actually builds sidewalks.
sheeshhh (Score:2, Insightful)
What the fuck is the world coming to?
.
Re:For serious? (Score:5, Insightful)
Should google have to write warnings for all dangers? WARNING: You are about to cross the road. Our records show that this intersection has a crosswalk. Please wiat until the red hand turns into a white funny-looking guy before proceeding. Be sure to check both ways for traffic before stepping onto the road. Be aware that there may be other pedestrians crossing the road. Be sure not to collide with them. Caution! Be aware that there may be open manholes! DO NOT step on a manhole that has it's cover removed. For a full list of applicable warnings, please go to www.google.ca/pleasetiemyshoes/
Re:For serious? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:For serious? (Score:3, Insightful)
It'd be interesting to see if that was the only available route bar some huge detour. I've been around parts of town where the only roads are four lane, 45 MPH with few, if any, lights. Maybe she should sue the city/county/state for not providing pedestrian-safe routes?
Upon RTFA, they have a link to the route she took [google.com]. I was hesitant to jump on the "stupid bitch" bandwagon but there's multiple roads running parallel. Stupid bitch needs to use her god damn brain.
Re:Um. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not willing to say that the driver is the only one at fault. If she's absent minded enough to follow her blackberry for walking directions onto a highway and realize there's an increased risk for doing so after the fact... I don't doubt she could have taken a few steps right in front of the car at the wrong time either.
But, in all likelihood, yes... The driver wasn't paying attention. This should be an insurance + local law enforcement matter. Google shouldn't be involved whatsoever.
Re:Whatever happened to common sense? (Score:3, Insightful)
LOL! What a greedy AND stupid bitch.
Quick someone text her instructions on how to breath water - you'll do the world a big favor.
Re:For serious? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's irrelevant whether she wins. The defendant has already lost - legal fees will cost them double the damages claimed if they fight the case.
Re:Whatever happened to common sense? (Score:3, Insightful)
Really... jeeze... What ever happened to common sense.
It got overridden by greed and narcissism.
Re:For serious? (Score:5, Insightful)
The absurd part is that Google is now obligated to expend resources to answer this groundless suit. Even in winning, they'll lose.
Re:For serious? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think Google has any fault here... however she was on a highway as a pedestrian (which is almost always prohibited... for a reason).
The motorist though... they might. It depends on a lot of things. Was she in the shoulder (was there one?)? Unless it was an emergency, the driver should NOT have been in that shoulder. If there was none, then she was in the right of way. Whether the driver has any fault now depends on a lot of things.
Re:Whatever happened to common sense? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:For serious? (Score:3, Insightful)
Spare no vitriol for the judge if he/she doesn't immediately dismiss this as frivolous, and fines the bitch a few grand for wasting the court's time.
Re:We're breeding stupidity (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:For serious? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:For serious? (Score:5, Insightful)
Idiot (Score:1, Insightful)
Google once directed me to walk through a lake to get to my destination. I laughed, and found a different route.
This woman is a moron.
Re:For serious? (Score:3, Insightful)
But remember, she hasn't won anything yet, just filed a suit.
True indeed. And I hope it's rapidly laughed out of the courts before it becomes a prop for opportunistic politicians pursuing tort "reform".
Stuff like this drives me nuts because, out of the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of lawsuits filed every year, most involve legitimate grievances (or are quickly dismissed), and most of them are settled out of court for reasonable amounts. A tiny proportion -- the handful we hear about every year -- involve ridiculous claims accompanied by ridiculous awards, usually delivered by a jury of idiots, and then reduced to more reasonable levels on appeal once the journalists have moved on to the next spectacle. The exceptions are generally giant awards that are completely proportionate to the giant misdeeds of enormous corporations, which always leads to lobbyists for those corporations handing large campaign contributions to unscrupulous politicians who conflate the two extremes.
Re:For serious? (Score:3, Insightful)
Right and what do you do when you have bad directions? You turn around and go another way. Yea it sucks that Google produced a bad route. She approached this highway on foot though, she expects us to accept she could not take a look at the situation and decide if it was safe?
My gosh whatever happened to personal responsibility; if Google had told here jump on a bridge would she have done it? Why do people feel entitled to go about not thinking in our society? Last I checked there was a large lump of gray tissue in everyone head which has the primary function of keeping them alive; maybe they should um use it!
Re:For serious? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:For serious? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oncoming Traffic Re:For serious? (Score:3, Insightful)
Facing oncoming traffic is safer because you have better visibility of the vehicles that are in close proximity. However, it is more dangerous for a bicyclist to ride against traffic because cars entering and leaving the roadway don't anticipate an approaching bicycle on that side of the road (drivers tend to only look "upstream" when turning). Unlike bicyclists, pedestrians have an effective speed of zero and are also expected to stop and wait for safe conditions at every intersection, so they can safely employ the "wrong" side of the road and get some advantages from the better visibility.
Re:For serious? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's irrelevant whether she wins. The defendant has already lost - legal fees will cost them double the damages claimed if they fight the case.
Actually, who wins will be quite relevant. Even if Google spends $1M winning this case, they will have precedent that they do not need an idiot warning at the start of their Google Maps app. This will keep other morons from suing them for similar mental failures.
Re:For serious? (Score:5, Insightful)
Too bad she didn't die. It would have contributed to the health of the gene pool.
Re:For serious? (Score:4, Insightful)
That defense needs to win more often.
Re:For serious? (Score:3, Insightful)
They're not there to save lives. They're there to save money from lawsuits like this one.
What we need is a better legal system so stupid warning labels won't be necessary for either reason.