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."
priceless (Score:1, Interesting)
everyone and everything but yourself are at fault right? why dont these silly lawsuits just get dismissed for wasting court time?
Obligatory quote time (Score:5, Interesting)
xkcd? (Score:2, Interesting)
This is a real issue (Score:2, Interesting)
It's a real issue if a map system leads people into a trap.
There was a problem in England where a map system led truck drivers down a narrow dead-end lane from which they could not turn around. This was an ongoing problem, and the local property owners raised hell.
An Oregon couple was sent down a Forest Service road in a remote area [kgw.com] and was stuck for three days before they were rescued.
The problem is serious in situations where the map system leads people onto an initially plausible route which gets them into trouble. Looking at the pictures for this walking problem, there's a dirt trail alongside the road. But does that dirt trail end before the destination?
Because Google actually drives out roads and takes pictures, people may be led to have more confidence in Google's mapping than in systems which just use ordinary map data.
Re:For serious? (Score:3, Interesting)
But I think my concerns with Google and their "corporate culture" with respect to Age, is going to be illuminating in the future.
Re:Whatever happened to common sense? (Score:5, Interesting)
LOL! What a greedy AND stupid bitch.
Its important to determine if SHE filed suit or if her medical insurer filed suit on her behalf to recover costs.
I have never personally filed a lawsuit against anyone, but both my wife and I have, in separate accidents, had our cars hit by uninsured drivers (thankfully no injuries) and both times the insurance company filed suit on our behalf to recover the money they paid to repair / replace our cars using our collision policy. For the accident 7 years ago, it took like 3 years but they finally recovered all their costs and reimbursed us our deductible, and the other accident a couple months ago is still ongoing. I would expect automotive medical claims to work the same way...
Re:Whatever happened to common sense? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:For serious? (Score:5, Interesting)
Rosenberg claims that she accessed the Maps function on her Blackberry mobile device, where it did not include the warning.
Which is utter bull, I have google maps 3.2.1 on my blackberry and it certainly DOES warn you of dangers while following their directions. You also have to agree to a EULA when you launch it for the first time, which I imagine disclaims any liability.
Re:Whatever happened to common sense? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm sure the locals and the municipality are saying "Why the !#%!%$! did we build these stupid trails if people aren't going to use them?"
I know this taxpayer is saying, "why can't our idiot local governments publish their routes so Google, Garmin, etc. can include them in their databases?"