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)
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: (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: (Score:3, Interesting)
But I think my concerns with Google and their "corporate
Re:For serious? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In the UK it's at the judges discretion - I believe that's the case in the US also.
But you're right in the sense that very very light grey is white, and very very dark grey is black, for practical purposes.
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: (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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
The suit is silly enough that they could just hire a temp for $8 an hour, buy him a suit, and sent him to sit in the courtroom and wait until the case is dismissed.
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:4, Insightful)
That defense needs to win more often.
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: (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 gra
Re:For serious? (Score:5, Funny)
if Google had told her jump on a bridge...
So, *this* is why they removed "Swim across the Atlantic Ocean -- 3462 miles" as part of the route to go from Boston, MA to London, UK! ;-)
Paul B.
Re:For serious? (Score:5, Informative)
if Google had told her jump on a bridge...
So, *this* is why they removed "Swim across the Atlantic Ocean -- 3462 miles" as part of the route to go from Boston, MA to London, UK! ;-)
Paul B.
Yeah, but you still get to kayak 5404km across the Pacific Ocean [google.com] when going from Toyko to Sidney. (step number 48)
Re: (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:For serious? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:For serious? (Score:5, Informative)
Wikipedia has an article that goes into greater detail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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 de
Re:For serious? (Score:5, Insightful)
Too bad she didn't die. It would have contributed to the health of the gene pool.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes. It skidded on BP's spilled oil.
Re:For serious? (Score:5, Informative)
Caution: If you are undergoing fluid immersion, avoid breathing temporarily to avoid drowning.
Re:For serious? (Score:5, Funny)
Breathe regularly to prevent asphyxiation.
Now you tell me. -- David Carradine
Re:For serious? (Score:4, Funny)
blockquote)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//blockquote)
That's even worse. Providing such explicit instructions would be cannon fodder for a attorney. The mantra "Less is more" comes to mind.
Simply saying something to the effect 'These directions are provided as a courtesy. The user is fully responsible for their personal safety while using said directions. By using the directions you absolve yadda, yadda, yadda....
In short, this woman, in my humble opinion, should remove herself from the gene-pool.
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:For serious? (Score:5, Funny)
WARNING: Leaving the computer may cause you to encounter the real world (beta). This contains myriad dangers. If you are unsure how to proceed, please go to bed and hide under your duvet.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Compared to Europe, sidewalk/walkway consistency and layout in America is atrocious as it is
Are you joking? I just got back from a holiday that included a few days pushing a stroller & my toddler around the sidewalks of Paris. In no particular order you've got to struggle with cars parked on the sidewalk (and/or agressively driving up in front of you on the sidewalk), unmarked random sidewalk construction sites, odd mixtures of cobblestones, randomness of curb ramps, sidewalks that slope towards th
Re:For serious? (Score:5, Informative)
Paris has a disadvantage compared to Chicago...history. Paris was a city when Chicago was a marsh full of wild onions.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Paris has a disadvantage compared to Chicago...history. Paris was a city when Chicago was a marsh full of wild onions.
And all the 1300 years before that too.
Chicago got its name 1800. Paris got a capital city in 508.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Paris was a city when Chicago was a marsh full of wild onions.
It's good to know that Paris was a city this year, but what does that have to do with Paris's history?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And we're not just talking about cities, either. Imagine I want to go from one town to another (I live in Germany) without taking either a car or a train - let's say I want to take a bike (or perhaps walk, although obviously, that'll only work if the two towns aren't that far from each other in the first place). I can do that; I can't follow the Autobahn, of course, but all "regular" federal/state/county roads have paved sidewalks for pedestrians and bikers (separated from the actual road by a green strip). The only exceptions are the tiniest rural roads, the kind that only have one lane for both directions where you can't go faster than 20 mph at most anyway and where you'll probably never encounter another car, but there, you can bike or walk on the road, anyway.
I don't know what it's like in the USA, of course.
Of course. And the reality is that only Germans and other rich white Europeans REALLY care about roads on a deep fundamental level. It is probably safe to assume that other countries populated mostly by relatively wealthy (ask anybody in Africa) and racially-advantaged people have similar benefits, but my lady who grew up in various parts of Europe tells me that many of the roads are narrow lanes with barely enough room for two Minis to pass. So this is going to depend very much on where you are. The same i
Re:Oncoming Traffic Re:For serious? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Oncoming Traffic Re:For serious? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (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
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No. You are supposed to walk so that you face oncoming traffic.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you're in California you do it because there are no safe pedestrian routes, period.
But in Utah? Actually, frankly I'm surprised there are ever enough people in one place at the same time in Utah for any accidents to happen there.
Whatever happened to common sense? (Score:5, Informative)
Really... jeeze... What ever happened to common sense. If it looks dangerous... it probably is. If her Blackberry told her to insert her arm into an industrial shredder would she have done that as well?
Take a look at this... this is the road in question... [google.com] There was plenty of room on the left side of the street to walk without being anywhere near the road.
I really hope this gets thrown out of court. People need to take responsibility for their own stupidity.
Re: (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: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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Really... jeeze... What ever happened to common sense.
It got overridden by greed and narcissism.
Re:Whatever happened to common sense? (Score:5, Informative)
"Take a look at this... this is the road in question... [google.com] There was plenty of room on the left side of the street to walk without being anywhere near the road."
It's much worse than that. There's a walking/cycling trail that parallels most of her route, if the route indicated on the map is correct. Take a look [google.com]. In many cases it was only a few steps from the road. She could SEE a safe, non-car route paralleling hers, but did not avail herself of it. From the described route, she walked right past the entrance to the trail [google.com] and stayed on the road. She took the "industrial shredder" option by following the blue line instead. Maybe you could fault Google for not pointing out the trail, but it was RIGHT THERE in plain sight. No, I'll stay on the busy road with no sidewalk.
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?"
Re: (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?"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
let's suggest the head instead of an arm.
She'll have to get it out of her ass first!
Re: (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:For serious? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The computer would have told her to keep alert.
She however trusted in her phone.
Never trust your phone telling you what to do, even if it is supposed to be smart.
Criminal little nasties, waiting for the jailbreak.
Um. (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Exactly. How is this any different than Google suggesting I use a crosswalk and getting hit?
The driver is the only one at fault. Highway driving or not, you are supposed to be watching out for pedestrians (hikers, cyclists, etc).
However, she should lose the case for either stupidity or greed, whichever is driving her to sue the big company.
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:Um. (Score:5, Funny)
Looks to me like it's RIM's fault.
Rosenberg claims that she accessed the Maps function on her Blackberry mobile device, where it did not include the warning.
I'd say it's time to fire the lawyers who forgot to sue RIM and then use new lawyers to sue the lawyers whose mistake it was.
I'm sorry but... (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:I'm sorry but... (Score:5, Funny)
but she did feel safe thanks to the lack of warning on the google directions.
I totally sympathize with her. I was looking up walking directions from Seattle to Brisbane, Australia and when the Google Maps turn #10 ended up being "Kayak across the Pacific Ocean," for 2,756 miles at first I was like, "No way I can kayak that far." But then I realized that Google Maps wouldn't tell me to do something that wasn't perfectly safe so I went ahead and did it.
Sooo... Long story short, do you think Omaha Steaks delivers to GPS coordinates in the ocean? Also, do they carry sunblock?
--Sent from my Blackberry wireless device
Re:I'm sorry but... (Score:5, Funny)
See, thats why blackberry is great. An iPhone wouldn't get signal in the middle of the Pacific.
So.... (Score:3, Insightful)
No personal responsibility at all involved here? I can see how the driver is liable, but Google? Psht.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying she should be immediately arrested but at least she should be charged with a criminal offense.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope that your locale actually builds sidewalks.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Where I am the major highways only run to areas that are far enough apart that you couldn't really walk along a highway to any meaningful destination. It is very much illegal to walk or ride a bike on them.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Funny)
Her father is the one responsible. He pulled out too late.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"Please, kids, don't use the pull-out method -- there's a reason it's called the Vietnam of contraception."
Good.
I'll call the result "Peace With Honor" and run away!
Nobody's perfect (Score:4, Insightful)
good thing (Score:5, Funny)
she didnt press "im feeling lucky" button so
And I'm Going to Sue Darwin (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What, is it now Darwin's fault the US court system will protect Darwin Award candidates? Or in a more classic form... [bash.org].
Why not sue RIM while you're at it? (Score:2)
Sheesh, not sure if following the stupid directions, or suing everything in sight after wards is the worse offense.
Re: (Score:2)
She should also hit the IETF, IEEE, and her ISP. I'm sure a Sisco router routed this dangerous information at some point too.
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Way I see it, she could (A) sue them for not teaching her properly, or (B) for not passing on the gene for COMMON SENSE
Re:not a darwin award winner (Score:4, Funny)
unless there are undead lawyers.
They're called Estate Lawyers [about.com]
They're the complement to "ambulance chaser", they're more of a "hearse chaser".
Me too! (Score:2)
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.
As Clint Eastwood* says (Score:2, Informative)
"If you want a guarantee, buy a toaster."
*And Happy Birthday, Clint!
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: (Score:2)
And sue Al Gore for inventing the internet in the first place. Or Babbage...
Obligatory quote time (Score:5, Interesting)
Empathy (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I feel exactly what you're feeling, and I empathize with you completely!
Oh Ya... (Score:5, Funny)
Seriously and probably incurably retarded person gets injured through own sheer stupidity and wants others to pay. Lawyers will make a bundle. News at 11.
Re:Oh Ya... (Score:5, Funny)
There's a saying in my motherland that goes something like "Fucking retards deserve what they get."
well.... (Score:2)
$100,000 lawsuit is pretty cheap these days....
That's probably less then 3 billable days for google lawyers.
sheeshhh (Score:2, Insightful)
What the fuck is the world coming to?
.
This story is made up (Score:5, Funny)
There are no kilometers in Utah.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There are no kilometers in Utah.
There may, however, be a kill-o-meter in Mountain View...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And coffee is hot (Score:2)
People like this should be sent away, far far away and they dilute the gene pool.
Common sense FAIL (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Perhaps I should make the subject "Common sense absent"? Am I the only person left on the planet who can assess a situation and determine whether it's safe or not, and take appropriate actions to safeguard myself? On second thought I call bullshit; I cannot believe anyone is so stupid as this, this woman must be looking for a payday.
Could not have said it better myself. A woman, ostensibly this means she is an adult, should have been able to make a judgement call based on her surroundings. Should Google really be responsible for this? NO
xkcd? (Score:2, Interesting)
Same Thing Happened to Me (Score:2)
The same thing happened to me, but I turned around and found another way without Google's help.
What makes this a problem in my mind is that Google Maps doesn't offer a "detour me" feature that allows you to easily avoid specified nodes in the commute graph. My Garmin GPS had this feature and driving all over the Western half of the US for many months I can tell you it was an indispensable feature.
A good detour feature is a really necessary feature in an emergency situation. As we become more dependent on th
So much stupid (Score:2)
Guess they better remove the kayak across the pacific in some directions before someone does it. And can I sue Google if the directions they give me result in me getting in a car accident? After all I wouldn't have been on that road if Google didn't tell me too.
Also, while I'm at it, I cut myself with a knife at a restaurant that came up on a Google search, so I'll hit them with that suit as well. At the same time I hit them for sending me to a seafood place with my shellfish allergies.
But it's not just
She didn't get hit enough. (Score:5, Funny)
Seriously. Where's a speeding, out-of-control Michael Bay-style 18-wheeler loaded with gasoline and hand grenades that's already on fire when you need one? I think Google's entire response should be a photocopy of an enormous erect penis that just says "suck it" at the bottom.
I blame the driver (Score:4, Funny)
clearly he wasn't driving fast enough, and apparently his aim isn't so good either..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)