Google sued over fatal Google Maps error after man drove off broken bridge

[Wrexis]

Google sued over fatal Google Maps error after man drove off broken bridge

Google allegedly gave drivers bridge route for years despite correction requests.

arstechnica.com

Philip Paxson wasn't familiar with the area and didn't know the bridge was collapsed, the lawsuit said. "Google Maps directed Mr. Paxson to travel home over the Snow Creek Bridge. Unbeknownst to Mr. Paxson, a very large section of the Snow Creek Bridge had collapsed in 2013 and was never repaired," the lawsuit said.

There was no artificial lighting, "and the area was pitch black at 11:00 p.m.," the lawsuit said

Click to shrink...

In September 2020, "Hickory resident Kim Ellis used the 'Suggest An Edit' feature on Google Maps to place the Google Maps Defendants on notice that the Snow Creek Bridge had washed away," the lawsuit said. In November 2020, after Google took no action, "Ellis again contacted the Google Maps Defendants via the 'Suggest An Edit' feature pleading for Google Maps to update its navigation system," the lawsuit said.

Click to shrink...

There was a similar issue locally where for years Google basically recommended driving into a river as the shortest route (yeah, The Office joke but real). I do feel Google have some responsibility for this - the directions were wrong for 7 years.

 

[Necromanti]

I'm…more concerned by the fact that the collapsed bridge was unmarked and unbarricaded. That thing should be closed off.

 

[mordecaii83]

I would have some sympathy for Google, but the fact they ignored someone contacting them multiple times telling them the bridge was broken is pretty messed up and they absolutely deserve to lose a bunch of money for this.

I'm…more concerned by the fact that the collapsed bridge was unmarked and unbarricaded. That thing should be closed off.

Click to shrink...

This is also a huge problem, plenty of blame to go around.

 

[gforguava]

Google definitely has some fault in this but shouldn't the town(or county or whatever) have done something about that road just going to a hole?

 

[Fat4all]

I'm…more concerned by the fact that the collapsed bridge was unmarked and unbarricaded. That thing should be closed off.

Click to shrink...

I would have some sympathy for Google, but the fact they ignored someone contacting them multiple times telling them the bridge was broken is pretty messed up and they absolutely deserve to lose a bunch of money for this.

Click to shrink...

both of these

fuck Google AND why the fuck wasn't the bridge closed to traffic

 

[Wrexis]

I'm…more concerned by the fact that the collapsed bridge was unmarked and unbarricaded. That thing should be closed off.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, Google were not the only ones that messed up.

 

[dejay]

The Snow Creek Bridge reportedly collapsed in 2013 and wasn't repaired. Barricades were typically in place but "were removed after being vandalized and were missing at the time of Paxson's wreck," according to The Charlotte Observer. The lawsuit has five defendants, including Google and its owner Alphabet.

"The Bridge Defendants refused to properly maintain the bridge, leaving it in a horrendously dangerous state of disrepair for years," the lawsuit said. "The Bridge Defendants refused to place reasonable and proper barricades in front of the hazard to alert drivers of the deadly drop and failed to enact inspection measures to ensure that barricades remained in front of the hazard until necessary repairs occurred."

Click to shrink...

Personally I'd say it's 99% the fault of these people.

Who the fuck leaves a road open, with no signposts or barricades? Just a drop, with no lighting.

 

[Psamtik]

I don't care how badly they were "vandalized", it's crazy that they removed the barricades blocking a broken bridge. That's shockingly negligent.

Even the provided pictures of when they were up indicate a woefully inadequate setup. Look how close these are to the drop, on an unlit street:

One of the roads on my mail route ends on a bridge that's been out for a few years, and there are concrete Jersey barriers, fences, and construction barrels in addition to the signs. You shouldn't be able to get a vehicle anywhere near that kind of hazard.

 

[Fat4all]

who would be responsible for that, the North Carolina Department of Transportation?

can they be sued as well?

 

[El Bombastico]

Man, if they have concrete proof that the guy contacted Google twice but they still never fixed their maps then they're about to be taken to the fucking cleaners...

 

[Wrexis]

Even the provided pictures of when they were up look woefully inadequate:

Click to shrink...

Those barricades are ridiculous. A heavy wind would blow them them away.

 

[Necromanti]

who would be responsible for that, the North Carolina Department of Transportation?

can they be sued as well?

Click to shrink...

It seems the land was owned or managed privately by at least two businesses…? Judging by the defendants. Seems totally crazy to me that there wouldn't be any governmental oversight assuming the bridge is accessible to the public. A literal death pit they've had around for a decade.

 

[Aarglefarg]

Google shares some of the blame but most of it goes to those who are meant to be responsible for the infrastructure itself.

 

[Fat4all]

It seems the land was owned or managed privately by at least two businesses…? Judging by the defendants. Seems totally crazy to me.

Click to shrink...

that's nuts, how is there just a fucked up and dangerous bridge open and allowed to exist

 

[DJ_Lae]

I...don't know if using the 'suggest an edit' feature counts as contacting Google.

I'm far more concerned about the 'a very large section of the Snow Creek Bridge had collapsed in 2013 and was never repaired' bit. Why did the county/town/whatever not put concrete barriers up for something completely broken that long? Piddly road closed signs are not sufficient.

Whoever is responsible for the road and the bridge should be sued. Google...eh.

 

[ShadowSoldier89]

I would place higher blame on the DoT because holy shit that is ungodly terrible handling of a destroyed bridge.

However google is at enough fault here to deserve the lawsuit and reparations as well. They should not be ignoring multiple requests to amend their maps, and it had been out for 10 years, they shouldve had plenty of time to update whatever caused that road to even be apart of their mapping services in the first place.

 

[NekoNeko]

idk but if that happened to me google would be pretty low on the blame list.

 

[cjelly]

I read about this yesterday… seems like that area of road/bridge is privately owned so they can basically do whatever.

 

[FF Seraphim]

Those barricades are ridiculous. A heavy wind would blow them them away.

Click to shrink...

Nor do they have any thing other than reflectors on so if foggy and dark you might not see it.

 

[UnderJollyRoger]

It is way more concerning how blindly people follow the navigation instead of following the actual street.
100% human error from the driver.

 

[Fallout-NL]

That is just insane. If you're going to leave it like that for ten fucking years, at least put in place a permanent barrier and ample warning.

It is way more concerning how blindly people follow the navigation instead of following the actual street.
100% human error from the driver.

Click to shrink...

I thought this as I entered the thread, but look at those pictures and then imagine driving there in the dark with no street lights. It'd be very easy to miss.

 

[UnderJollyRoger]

I thought this as I entered the thread, but look at those pictures and then imagine driving there in the dark with no street lights. It'd be very easy to miss.

Click to shrink...

Fair point, yeah.

 

[Kazooie]

A navigation is a more convenient map, from my perspective, you are still in full responsibility for where you drive; the navigation only gives suggestions for possible routes which may or may not be up to date. I think the blame rests mostly on the one responsible for the bridge, and the driver (if you cannot see the road sufficiently, you must go slower until you do).

 

[Ronnie Poncho]

That's the most pathetic barrier I've ever seen. Needs multiple layers of barriers, and cones you can hit safely, with enough time to see and stop.

 

[Psamtik]

Yeah, after checking with the local paper (https://hickoryrecord.com/news/loca...cle_fdbdbf18-57cf-11ee-899b-67e5bd62df73.html), the bridge in question is on a road connecting two residential streets in a typical suburban neighborhood. There's no way in hell that should've been left unblocked, for any amount of time. It's not some obscure unpaved farm access road or a neglected trail through deep woods. People live right next to this thing.

Even without GPS, a person unfamiliar with the area could easily end up taking a wrong turn or trying to cut through, and absent a barricade, that's a deathtrap.

 

[cjelly]

Here we go, point 3 of the additional terms of service for Google Maps. I don't see the family winning this.

Google Maps/Earth Additional Terms of Service – Google

www.google.com

Actual Conditions; Assumption of Risk. When you use Google Maps/Google Earth's map data, traffic, directions, and other content, you may find that actual conditions differ from the map results and content, so exercise your independent judgment and use Google Maps/Google Earth at your own risk. You're responsible at all times for your conduct and its consequences.

 

[Cugel]

theofficedrivingintolake.gif

 

[Zeel]

That's what you get for not using Waze.

 

[Aztechnology]

This is 100% the municipalities fault first and google way down the line

 

[Superking]

I don't care how badly they were "vandalized", it's crazy that they removed the barricades blocking a broken bridge. That's shockingly negligent.

Even the provided pictures of when they were up indicate a woefully inadequate setup. Look how close these are to the drop, on an unlit street:

One of the roads on my mail route ends on a bridge that's been out for a few years, and there are concrete Jersey barriers in addition to the signs. You shouldn't be able to get a vehicle anywhere near that kind of hazard.

Click to shrink...

uh...yeah google might kinda suck here but the ones i'd personally direct my ire to are the people who erected this pathetic 'barrier' and then removed it entirely WTAF?!

 

[Wachenroder]

nvm

 

[mentok15]

Google should have updated their maps but are they, or any mapping service, responsible for this?

 

[Dan Thunder]

I'm…more concerned by the fact that the collapsed bridge was unmarked and unbarricaded. That thing should be closed off.

Click to shrink...

Reading the article it seems to imply that the bridge was on private land and the owners were just too lazy/stupid/tight-fisted to at least warn people that the bridge they're heading towards in the pitch black no longer exists!

On his daughter's birthday as well. That's awful.

 

[red mage]

It is way more concerning how blindly people follow the navigation instead of following the actual street.
100% human error from the driver.

Click to shrink...

There was no artificial lighting and the area was pitch black

 

[Kromeo]

I would be looking to sue whoever the local authority is (whatever the US equivalent of that is) before Google

 

[aerts1js]

It is way more concerning how blindly people follow the navigation instead of following the actual street.
100% human error from the driver.

Click to shrink...

Ehhhh that bridge would make it hard to see in the dark. Looking at the photo I get how it could happened.

 

[Rhomega]

theofficedrivingintolake.gif

Click to shrink...

I was thinking of this too, but that was more of Michael's fault for not closely looking at the GPS map, while the cameraman did.

 

[GulAtiCa]

It is way more concerning how blindly people follow the navigation instead of following the actual street.
100% human error from the driver.

Click to shrink...

Wow, victim blaming already?

I could easily see someone drive over that without good lighting

 

[JHoNNy1OoO]

Nothing is going to happen to Google over this. They aren't responsible for infrastructure collapsing and the local government not blocking/repairing it.

 

[red mage]

I would be looking to sue whoever the local authority is (whatever the US equivalent of that is) before Google

Click to shrink...

According to the article:

The lawsuit has five defendants, including Google and its owner Alphabet.

Click to shrink...

 

[Big Baybee]

Google has its share of blame in this. They were contacted and didn't fix their maps. Of course the city, county, or whoever has the bulk of the blame for not adequately closing it off. People don't need to rush in here to say this. Google will be alright.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Wow, victim blaming already?

I could easily see someone drive over that without good lighting

Click to shrink...

It's your responsibility as a driver to drive in a manner you are able to see what's in front of you.

Maps sometimes get things wrong. That's not really an excuse for following those wrong directions as a driver. If anything, the town should be the one sued for not having any sort of warning or barricades on that route.

 

[CorpseLight]

There's a dilapidated bridge walking distance from my house and that thing is closed off with concrete barriers and fencing so no one drives over it.

Incredibly negligent of the town.

 

[red mage]

It's your responsibility as a driver to drive in a manner you are able to see what's in front of you.

Maps sometimes get things wrong. That's not really an excuse for following those wrong directions as a driver. If anything, the town should be the one used for not having any sort of warning or barricades on that route.

Click to shrink...

The guy would have fallen even without Google Maps though. There was literally no barricade or sign.

 

[Hollywood Duo]

yeah thats on the local government, shit is crazy dangerous

 

[steejee]

Yeah those pictures of the gap are pretty bad. That should had jersey barriers and warning signage. Whoever owns/maintains that road I would put as 100% liable.

Terrible way to die, makes me think of Chappaquiddick and Kennedy from way back - very short drop, but a setup that is fatal in the wrong situation.

I'm not sure I'd consider Google liable here any more than a map maker, but they are notoriously bad at correcting/updating Maps based on user feedback.

 

[Wereroku]

I would be looking to sue whoever the local authority is (whatever the US equivalent of that is) before Google

Click to shrink...

The developers that own the place are tiny LLC's. Google is getting sued because I doubt they are going to get any money from the tiny companies for their negligence.

 

[WedgeX]

The municipality carries so much blame here. How are there not massive concrete barriers in front of the bridge? How did they not apply for ARP funding to fix it?

Here we go, point 3 of the additional terms of service for Google Maps. I don't see the family winning this.

Google Maps/Earth Additional Terms of Service – Google

www.google.com

Actual Conditions; Assumption of Risk. When you use Google Maps/Google Earth's map data, traffic, directions, and other content, you may find that actual conditions differ from the map results and content, so exercise your independent judgment and use Google Maps/Google Earth at your own risk. You're responsible at all times for your conduct and its consequences.

Click to shrink...

Ah yes, the mighty terms of use. "Please trust our product and use it exclusively! Except when you shouldn't then don't blame us!"

 

[Tobor]

Here we go, point 3 of the additional terms of service for Google Maps. I don't see the family winning this.

Google Maps/Earth Additional Terms of Service – Google

www.google.com

Actual Conditions; Assumption of Risk. When you use Google Maps/Google Earth's map data, traffic, directions, and other content, you may find that actual conditions differ from the map results and content, so exercise your independent judgment and use Google Maps/Google Earth at your own risk. You're responsible at all times for your conduct and its consequences.

Click to shrink...

Terms of service don't prevent a company from being sued for a negligence lawsuit, and they don't prevent a judge from finding them liable.

 

[gozu]

Google has had a history of doing fuck all to fix several map errors in my experience and should be incentivized to do so by losing this trial.

They have a virtual monopoly on maps.

They are the defacto standard.

They have profited from this (I bought several android phone for better integration with google maps).

People WILL rely on them for life & death situations.

They get all this giant amount of data from tens of millions of GPS-enabled smartphones that they can EASILY, like really EASILY use to fix these kind of issues...

... but they fucking don't. With great power comes great responsibility.

If no cars or extremely few cars drive on a particular stretch of road for a day. Consider there might either be road work happening, or something more permanent like this. Send a fucking google car to check it out, or if you don't want to send cars to check it out, at least STOP recommending the goddamned route. Done. No human intervention needed. Zero dollars spent.

As an imaginary judge, I hereby rule against Google on this matter. You wanted to rule maps? You did it! Congrats! My sentence is "With great power comes great responsibility". Spiderman is never wrong.

And yes, feel free to sue local governments as well for not putting concrete barriers at the bridge entrance. It's not an either/or situation, it's a sue them both and let the jury decide.

Here we go, point 3 of the additional terms of service for Google Maps. I don't see the family winning this.

Click to shrink...

You know all those tiny ass font contracts that go on for 50 pages? The ones you're supposed to read when you get a credit card, or rent a house, or use software, or update iTunes, or get cable, or see a doctor, or get your car repaired, or do any of a thousand fucking things in life?

Let it be known that I don't respect them. Either you do the right thing or you can get fucked as I will ignore the small print and fight you in court if I need to. We'll see if the jury decides every human being has to spend 10 years of their lives reading unnecessarily complex contracts. I'm sure the Jury LOOOOOVES that shit.

Life is too fucking short to do certain things.

Things change if the contracts are between two companies that are both lawyered up. In that case, it is assumed those companies are legally sophisticated, and, more importantly for me, a human being got paid the big bucks to read that drab, soul sucking legalese.

EWW EWW EWW!!! Those things are the worst literature ever.