Lots of interesting news today

skyhighZJ said:
One would think the liability would fall on the road commission for not putting up road signs or blockades as they surely new the bridge was out??
Click to expand...
I wouldnt be surprised if there were signs up 10yrs ago. Who knows what might have happened to them since. But I would agree with the argument that it is still their responsibility to replace/repair the signs if they are not existant anymore.

I also wonder how fast he was traveling? It said that the weather conditions were bad, which i know didnt help, but I wonder if he was traveling faster than his lights were allowing him to see and stop?
 
RatLabGuy said:
nypost.com

Family of dad who drove off collapsed bridge, drowned after following app directions sues Google

Philip Paxson’s family is suing Google for negligence after the dad of two died after driving off a collapsed bridge as he followed directions given on Maps.
nypost.com nypost.com
That sucks. Lot of failures all around.

Its hard to point the finger at Google after there should have been other things preventing it in the first place, but I'll say it definitely is hard to get them to fix map errors. I'd wager they face these suits a lot.
Click to expand...


Sad all the way around. Primary blame falls on whoever maintains that road (seems to be in question), but Google should have updated the map over the course of a decade. It'd be one thing if it was a recent issue, but 9 years?
 
JSJJ388 said:
Sad all the way around. Primary blame falls on whoever maintains that road (seems to be in question), but Google should have updated the map over the course of a decade. It'd be one thing if it was a recent issue, but 9 years?
Click to expand...
I fail to see how it's Google's fault at all. If this was 20 years ago and he was using a paper map, would you sue Rand McNally?
 
LBarr2002 said:
I fail to see how it's Google's fault at all. If this was 20 years ago and he was using a paper map, would you sue Rand McNally?
Click to expand...
They were repeatedly told to fix it, using the system Google provides for just this purpose.
Rand McNally put out new editions to the maps annually for this exact reason. They too had a means to give them info (albeit a lot less convenient than today).

It would even be different if Google didn't have a way to report it, but they do and have for a long time. And that system sucks.
 
RatLabGuy said:
They were repeatedly told to fix it, using the system Google provides for just this purpose.
Rand McNally put out new editions to the maps annually for this exact reason. They too had a means to give them info (albeit a lot less convenient than today).

It would even be different if Google didn't have a way to report it, but they do and have for a long time. And that system sucks.
Click to expand...
Ehh, I still have maps that don't have the 485 loop east of Charlotte on it. Rand McNally didn't send me updated versions each year.

I see your point here, but it's still driver's responsibility to pay attention where you're going. What about built in nav systems that the owner doesn't pay for updates? Who's fault?
 
LBarr2002 said:
Ehh, I still have maps that don't have the 485 loop east of Charlotte on it. Rand McNally didn't send me updated versions each year.

I see your point here, but it's still driver's responsibility to pay attention where you're going. What about built in nav systems that the owner doesn't pay for updates? Who's fault?
Click to expand...
IMO It's all about having a mechanism in place for correction or not and what a reasonable expectation is. At least that's what the lawyers would say.
Rand McNally makes new maps, you choose not to buy them. The car owner chooses not to pay for the updates, but they do exist. In both cases the company has a mechanism to fix problems, but there is no expectation for the version you have to be correct.
Google also has a mechanism to fix problems, and there is an expectation it is correct because they flat out advertise as always updating AND they have a mechanism to fix problems based on public feedback, You also could choose to run Google Maps on an old phone w/o service, like the old Garmins, and nobody would then hold Google accountable.

I'm not saying Google is solely at fault, or that the driver isn't at least partially as well.
But having the feedback system in place comes with the legal responsibility of using it appropriately IMO.
 
Last edited:
RatLabGuy said:
IMO It's all about having a mechanism in place for correction or not and what a reasonable expectation is. At least that's what the lawyers would say.
Rand McNally makes new maps, you choose not to buy them. The car owner chooses not to pay for the updates, but they do exist. In both cases the company has a mechanism to fix problems, but there is no expectation for the version you have to be correct.
Google also has a mechanism to fix problems, and there is an expectation it is correct because they flat out advertise as always updating AND they have a mechanism to fix problems based on public feedback, You also could choose to run Google Maps on an old phone w/o service, like the old Garmins, and nobody would then hold Google accountable.

I'm not saying Google is solely at fault, or that the driver isn't at least partially as well.
But having the feedback system in place comes with the legal responsibility of using it appropriately IMO.
Click to expand...
 
LBarr2002 said:
Ehh, I still have maps that don't have the 485 loop east of Charlotte on it. Rand McNally didn't send me updated versions each year.

I see your point here, but it's still driver's responsibility to pay attention where you're going. What about built in nav systems that the owner doesn't pay for updates? Who's fault?
Click to expand...

I agree with you in principle.
However, legally speaking - that Rand McNally published a new map the next year AND YOU CHOSE NOT TO BUY IT - would relieve them of liability.
This map from Google isn't a year old. It was delivered that day, real time, with bad info. Info that they had been provided to correct. They certainly have some level of culpability here.
 
Ron said:
I agree with you in principle.
However, legally speaking - that Rand McNally published a new map the next year AND YOU CHOSE NOT TO BUY IT - would relieve them of liability.
This map from Google isn't a year old. It was delivered that day, real time, with bad info. Info that they had been provided to correct. They certainly have some level of culpability here.
Click to expand...

I agree. Google may have enough lawyers to win this case, but I suspect they will pay the family an amount to make it go away.
 
LBarr2002 said:
Yeah, it will be settled. But does it open it up for litigation for every Michael Scott that drives into a pond?
Click to expand...
I hope so bc I have a car I'd love to get rid of and that seems quite fitting
 
Me poking the bear….. So, question, what happened to driver responsibility to watch, drive, and maintain their own situational awareness and manage their vehicle on the roadway? Why is it always someone else’s problem? Yes, dude was driving in an unknown area with inclement weather but that, if anything, should have made him MORE alert and not be relying on a computer to get him where he needs to go. Personal responsibility should still be a thing.another thing is it was a private road so I’d say Google has limited responsibility to correctness as opposed to a public road. YMMV.

1950 vehicle owners manual: how to check battery water level

2023 vehicle owners manual: don’t drink the battery contents.

People have gotten so comfortable having their hand held that nothing that happens up to and including death is not their fault.

//rant.
 
Last edited:
It's Google's fault I was speeding in this school zone. They didn't update the map once the new school was built.
 
skyhighZJ said:
Me poking the bear….. So, question, what happened to driver responsibility to watch, drive, and maintain their own situational awareness and manage their vehicle on the roadway? Why is it always someone else’s problem? Yes, dude was driving in an unknown area with inclement weather but that, if anything, should have made him MORE alert and not be relying on a computer to get him where he needs to go. Personal responsibility should still be a thing.another thing is it was a private road so I’d say Google has limited responsibility to correctness as opposed to a public road. YMMV.

1950 vehicle owners manual: how to check battery water level

2023 vehicle owners manual: don’t drink the battery contents.

People have gotten so comfortable having their hand held that nothing that happens up to and including death is not their fault.

//rant.
Click to expand...
This, it should fall on the driver to be responsible. Yes Google gave bad info but he followed it blindly. Faith is a good thing but not in Google.
 
skyhighZJ said:
Me poking the bear….. So, question, what happened to driver responsibility to watch, drive, and maintain their own situational awareness and manage their vehicle on the roadway? Why is it always someone else’s problem? Yes, dude was driving in an unknown area with inclement weather but that, if anything, should have made him MORE alert and not be relying on a computer to get him where he needs to go. Personal responsibility should still be a thing.another thing is it was a private road so I’d say Google has limited responsibility to correctness as opposed to a public road. YMMV.

1950 vehicle owners manual: how to check battery water level

2023 vehicle owners manual: don’t drink the battery contents.

People have gotten so comfortable having their hand held that nothing that happens up to and including death is not their fault.

//rant.
Click to expand...

Ik not saying it's all googles fault, but if they can report a crash that happened 5 minutes ago they can report a bridge that's been washed out for a decade.
 
JSJJ388 said:
Ik not saying it's all googles fault, but if they can report a crash that happened 5 minutes ago they can report a bridge that's been washed out for a decade.
Click to expand...
But you’re still missing the part of people having ownership of maneuvering a vehicles on the road and having the self awareness of what it’s capable of and where it’s going. Especially in unknown areas and suspect weather conditions.

Hell, when I was growing up we used to drive through white out snow and to hell with where we were going without googly or road signs we were expected to get there on our own recognizance and if we went in the ditch it was our fault. WE HAD TO OWN IT. That’s the point I’m making is people have turned in to the never ending “it’s someone else’s fault” society.

I’m not excusing the other entities as they should have done their job as well and yes it is sad that a man lost his life but still, where does it stop with passing the blame? Self ownership of your choices and actions would alleviate so much of the court system BS.
 
skyhighZJ said:
But you’re still missing the part of people having ownership of maneuvering a vehicles on the road and having the self awareness of what it’s capable of and where it’s going. Especially in unknown areas and suspect weather conditions.

Hell, when I was growing up we used to drive through white out snow and to hell with where we were going without googly or road signs we were expected to get there on our own recognizance and if we went in the ditch it was our fault. WE HAD TO OWN IT. That’s the point I’m making is people have turned in to the never ending “it’s someone else’s fault” society.

I’m not excusing the other entities as they should have done their job as well and yes it is sad that a man lost his life but still, where does it stop with passing the blame? Self ownership of your choices and actions would alleviate so much of the court system BS.
Click to expand...

I really don't think our opinions are too far apart. I do absolutely agree that we are all ultimately responsible for our own actions, but I also believe a company that touts its service as the best mapping software should have noted a bridge being gone for a decade and corrected it on their map.
 
skyhighZJ said:
But you’re still missing the part of people having ownership of maneuvering a vehicles on the road and having the self awareness of what it’s capable of and where it’s going. Especially in unknown areas and suspect weather conditions.

Hell, when I was growing up we used to drive through white out snow and to hell with where we were going without googly or road signs we were expected to get there on our own recognizance and if we went in the ditch it was our fault. WE HAD TO OWN IT. That’s the point I’m making is people have turned in to the never ending “it’s someone else’s fault” society.

I’m not excusing the other entities as they should have done their job as well and yes it is sad that a man lost his life but still, where does it stop with passing the blame? Self ownership of your choices and actions would alleviate so much of the court system BS.
Click to expand...
I'd agree with this in most cases. But when it comes to vehicle navigation, and also advertising your products, I think there's a case against Google. Google has chosen to advertise their products as continuously up-to-date. They harvest your personal data if you choose to use their products. In this case, they had harvested enough information to know they were dangerously misrepresenting a road. So yes, there is a level of negligence on their part.

As more and more companies advertise products like driving and navigation assistance, they have to accept responsibility for the outcome of relying on their claims.
 
Last edited:
I'm Not surprised, but a couple things I Didn't know. Brought out by the UAW strike.
 

Attachments

  • 20230924_211646.jpg
    20230924_211646.jpg
    104.6 KB · Views: 85
  • 20230924_211604.jpg
    20230924_211604.jpg
    77.7 KB · Views: 82
  • 20230924_211632.jpg
    20230924_211632.jpg
    88.5 KB · Views: 75
rodney eppes said:
I'm Not surprised, but a couple things I Didn't know. Brought out by the UAW strike.
Click to expand...
This is very smart on the part of the democratic part..........err....... mofi......err UNION...yeah Union!

Example: The big 3 need a muffler bearing for all cars manufactured. Only one supplier for all big 3 auto companies makes this muffler bearing. They have 300 employees. THEY strike. Because of no agreement the workers get paid for striking, but the big 3 has to literally shut down and pay unemployment because they simply can't get the parts to actually make their products.

The union is only out strike pay for 300 people as opposed to the entire work force. Big 3 has to get bailed out by big gov. therefore big gov covers union "loses"

Meanwhile, Ukraine is laundering union kickbacks and Biden is visiting the UAW workers today
 
Back
Top