Family of man who drove off collapsed bridge sues Google Maps for 'misguiding him to death'
Family of man who drove off collapsed bridge sues Google Maps for 'misguiding him to death'
Don't get tricked by big media the way they did with the McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit.
Google was notified for a decade that they had a dangerous route listed. Safety standards aren't made for people acting perfectly, they're made for having multiple layers of safety for things that can kill or maime you.
Yes, there is SOME level of personal responsibility, but if Google told 100,000 people to do something dangerous, it's inevitable that someone would have a combination of factors that caused someone to do it and die.
Google just claims over and over that it's too big and has too much data to be able to have any sort of customer service or maintenance, and this is the result.
Yes, other people are also responsible, but that's what the legal system is for, to look at evidence and not headlines and place blame. I wouldn't be surprised if Google settles out of court on this one and promises to fix their maps.
This kind of thing is why I hate Google Maps. There is no way to ensure that edits are carried out based on your local knowledge, whereas with OpenStreetMap you can just go make the changes that need to be made. It's been very satisfying for me to go contribute to OpenStreetMap when I see that paths are added or changed, so that the map reflects reality. Meanwhile Google Maps won't even move an entire park that is in the wrong place.
Maps have been around for thousands of years and have always been unreliable. You'd think the legal principles involved would be well explored by now.
Citations Needed podcast did an episode about "frivolous" lawsuits where they talked about the McD coffee lawsuit too: https://soundcloud.com/citationsneeded/episode-107-pop-torts-and-the-ready-made-virality-of-frivolous-lawsuit-stories
It's great that people are getting educated on things like this.
Legal Eagle also did a similar episode - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_jaU5V9FUg
What did bid media told public about got coffee lawsuit?
It's commonly used as an example of a frivolous lawsuit, because everyone knows coffee is hot right? Of course coffee can burn you.
The issue is that this particular coffee was negligently hot, so hot that the victim had third-degree burns on her privates. Also, the victim originally only sought coverage for medical expenses, but instead McD went to court and had to pay out a much larger amount.
Anyone who thinks this lawsuit was frivolous, try to find some of the pictures of her burns.
The media reporting was that is was frivolous, someone burned themselves on coffee and wanted to blame McDonald’s. That wasn’t the full story.
IIRC the narrative and the headline was “duh ! Hot coffee is hot! Idiot! “. ……But it turned out something like, McD coffee was like 99 degrees versus 70 degrees for your average cup and it was decided that makes a difference.
You’d have to check that, but that’s what I remember .
IMHO you still handle a hot drink like it could scald you , that’s your responsibility and your taught that from like 5 years old . However, you wouldn’t expect to be handed pretty much boiling water in a plastic cup .
Here's an article/video from a local news source that better explains what happened and who the lawsuit calls out as liable for the accident.
Seems there are possibly two entities that could be liable for the accident.
A. The developers...they did not turn over responsibility of roadwork to the NC DOT after the subdivision was completed, and had no road maintenance plan in place. This also means they would be responsible for marking the roadway that the bridge was out.
B. Google...they had multiple requests to change the map to indicate the bridge was out, and they didn't update their maps. Even Mapquest and Apple Maps have their maps updated.
Thank you for the additional source. So, there wasn't any signage, barriers, or lighting, AND it was dark and raining AND Google had multiple requests and 10 years to fix it AND other services have it properly marked. Maybe people should slow their roll and stop dismissing the case out of hand?
During Mr Paxson's journey, the GPS put him on the unfamiliar path of the bridge, which had collapsed almost a decade earlier and was never repaired, the lawsuit said.
He drove off the unguarded edge and crashed about 20 feet below, the lawsuit said.
I don't understand this at all. Were there no signs telling people that the bridge did not exist, or is the news report omitting some critical detail? If the bridge was like that for a decade, was he the only one to drive off it?
Also, when using navigation, you're still supposed to be looking at the road and paying attention to what's happening.
I don't get how stuff like this happens.
EDIT: Looks like there were no signs that the bridge was out. This really isn't a "Google problem", but the municipality should be to blame (unless they did put up a sign that was removed by some lowlife).
EDIT 2: Looking at the accident photo, it appears that the driver would have had to drive through overgrowth to even access this collapsed bridge. This is looking more like inattentiveness than poor navigation. Still trying to find the actual location of the bridge, so I can see what images Google Street View can provide going back since the time of the collapse.
This would be a non-story if they had just sued the city for negligence. But everything is big tech's fault nowadays.
It was private land, the story is a bit more nuanced than you may think. Someone posted a link to a local article that sheds a lot of light on the matter
https://maps.app.goo.gl/jmYi6euT36iMbMqq7
Think this is the bridge in question which appears fine on Google Street view.
I thought so! You can actually see that the most recent Street view (May, 2023) has barriers, but how can someone miss the gaping hole, even without signs? The driver would have still needed to drive through the overgrowth :/
This is what they would have seen as they approached the bridge:
Yes, barriers should have been put there, but being a low-speed residential area, the driver shouldn't have missed it. Really strange story, especially putting blame on Google.
EDIT: Barriers were put there, but vandals destroyed them, and they had to be removed ahead of this accident. SOURCE
"Image capture 2012" This is why it shows still intact. The bridge washed out after this street view was taken.
There's also a big problem with North Carolina's laws regarding the maintenance of roads. I'm not 100% sure this is the case, but I'd be willing to bet it is. Most other states require developers to get the road certified and adopted by the State Department of Transportation before any homes are sold. In NC, the developer can do this afterward (and they sometimes don't do it at all). Our neighborhood association found this out the hard way. Over ten years after the first house was sold, we called the DOT for a road repair and were told that our road wasn't covered. It was because of one form that wasn't filled out and filed with the State. The crazy thing is that the road is considered a public road (you can't treat it as private) and the state will not maintain it until you get it certified. If your road has degraded in that time, then you have to pay to get it back up to near-new quality before they will take it over.
Now imagine that instead of just a road to repair, it's also a road and a bridge. Is the HOA going to be able to raise the money to pay for a bridge repair? Pay for a proper barrier? This type of basic infrastructure should be handled by the state government.
Side political rant- a bill to change these laws has been in committee for years. I don't think it has ever made it to a vote.
An accident still could have occurred if someone wasn’t using Google maps. This is sad but IMO Google is the least to blame and the focus should be on the entities responsible for maintaining the bridge and road.
Don't get tricked by the title. The lawsuit isn't only going after Google, they are just one party in the chain of negligence that led to this death.
they are also in the lawsuit, the article just chose to misleadingly play the less juicy bits down
How would this person survive only a few years ago if they blindly trusted Google Maps completely and absolutely for their physical safety? Google Maps doesn't turn your steering wheel or press your gas pedal.
Because they’re not blindly trusting Google maps, which is why Google is only one of those in the lawsuit and not the most culpable.
I would usually agree but there was no barriers I am not sure about signage. While I think the driver should always be aware of where they are driving they honestly set him up for failure. On top of that Google had a decade to fix the route and didn't.
If there was signage, that at a minimum would make it his fault.
From now, i will ask google for every decision I make in my life that way I can sue them if they fuck up.
I hate these billionaire companies, but this aint it.
I live in the PNW and needed to go somewhere past a large mountain in winter. I.E. what roads were plowed and which weren't mattered. I used google maps, and downloaded the route, cause no cell signal on the mountain.
I started off and it was fine. Used the appropriate highways and such. There is a transition between major highways I'd never used before that I wanted help with, but that was the only bit I was unfamiliar with.
Google ended up trying to get me to take a forest service road that starts off looking good. At this point I know not to listen to it, cause I did know this area and knew that that road, regardless of what it looked like at the entrance, was not safe.
I got out and walked about 100 feet and around a corner, and suddenly it's 4 feet of snow. It all looked safe at the start. Remember, there is no cell signal and I could easily see getting stuck there and not being able to get help. It looked safe and google was telling me to do it. It feels easy to say, "hurr durr, the driver was stupid." but that just sounds to me like "hurr durr, that woman with third degree burns should have known McDonalds coffee was as hot as plasma."
"hurr durr, the driver was stupid." but that just sounds to me like "hurr durr, that woman with third degree burns should have known McDonalds coffee was as hot as plasma."
It doesn't sound like that to me.
One is McDonald's directly gave her a something that caused the damage.
The other is a guy decided to use maps and didn't paid attention to where he was going.
State troopers who found the father-of-two's body in his truck said there were no barriers or warning signs near the bridge.
[...]
The lawsuit adds that Google had previously been notified about the collapse and several attempts had been made for the route information to be updated.
People should get their priorities right
Sounds like this family should get a nice fat payout from Google and also from the city.
I knew the second I opened the link it was gonna be this.
They should sue the makers of the steering wheel.
Did the steering wheel just fly off?
It flew off and landed on the desk of some ambulance chasing lawyer, as luck would have it.
RIP Alan Tudyk
If I were the headline writer it'd be "Dead Man Sues Map For Not Being Territory"
When I’m driving, I like to check there is a nice bit of asphalt ahead of me.
If I don’t see no road, I might press the brakes and take a moment to reflect on things.
This is doubly true in a bridge.
Sorry but Darwin applies here.
Have you read the article ?
The bridge was destroyed since a decade but still on Google maps. There were no markings, no road blocks, nothing. It was 11pm in a pitch black country side road, the car was a jeep or something like that, aka not the best breaking action on the planet.
You know you are supposed to be able to stop on half the distance you can see ? But do you ?
So now pictures yourself driving in pitch black environment on a road so far up your mom’s ass there’s literally zero chance of seeing another car. It’s 11pm, you’re tired, eager to go home and your gps show you a straight line. On your lights beam you only see road, trees and darkness, you’re probably driving 50kph or more as you don’t feel the bumps on your huge murican style car.
Suddenly the road is darker and you see a huge gap (or maybe you missed it by a few seconds as you were changing radio station or checking your speedometer for half a second).
Add 1 or 2 seconds for your brain to react and you need at least 15 meters to stop, more if you’re driving faster.
Then also account that probably 85% of drivers are not pilots and they never brakes hard enough during an emergency (when they say to crush the brakes pedal with all your strength they mean it).
Result ? You’re probably dead, as well as most everyday drivers in the exact same situation, so here take your free Darwin Award 🥇 🤷🏻♂️
Sky News has a photo of it.
Imagine all that you said, and this is the bridge. It’s not a very big one, if it was in place you wouldn’t likely notice there was even a bridge there.
Result ? You’re probably dead, as well as most everyday drivers in the exact same situation,
Then those drivers are also happily abdicating there responsibility as a responsible driver.
If they hit a child or collapsed adult due to failing to watch where they are going. Who do they blame then.
As a disabled person with balance and vision issues. Attitudes like this are basically stating I and all elderly of physically infirm people, have zero legal right to leave my house. As drivers cannot be expected to watch where they are going if I fall.
The simple fact you and far to many modern drivers forget every day is. You are legally responsible and qualified and licenced when you drive. The fact that conditions make you unsafe t drive. Is in no way overridden by the fact that not getting to drive is incovinient and you are tired. If you cannot see what you are driving towards. You are legally required to stop driving. Not use your multi ton potential killing machine to make your life a littlke less hard.
Feel free to correct me, but I’m reading “Darwin applies here” as “the guy was too dumb to live longer”, which I think would be pretty insensitive. Regardless, I don’t think it’s fair at all to invoke Darwin here.
This article paints a better picture of the driver’s perspective. It was late at night and rainy, so vision was obscured and allegedly “pitch black”. Furthermore I’d argue the average driver doesn’t have a reason to believe that Google Maps would direct them over a collapsed bridge, much less one that’d collapsed 10 years ago, so it’d be easier to say “Can’t see a damn thing, I’ll trust Maps”.
I obviously don’t know the guy at all, and the details above were taken from the lawsuit afaik so they can make any claim they want, but with so little other information I think it’s fair to paint this more as a tragedy than as “natural selection”, even if you don’t want to hold Google or any of the bridge property managers responsible.
Plus, the guy had a wife and 2 kids, and was driving home late from cleaning up from his daughter’s birthday party; I think he deserves a bit more respect than that.
“Cant see, trust the map and keep driving” is like an even dumber birdbox challenge.
I can’t see a damn thing, I’ll trust Google Maps.
Unequivocally, Darwin .
You know something. If vision is poor. You are legally required to slow to the point you can safly stop within your visual range.
If for example its late at night. And some little old lady crossing the road falls and knocks herself out.
As a qualified driver you are responsible if you crush her head. Not h poor old lady. Sorry I could not see her on the road is not an acceptable excuse. If you cannot see whas in front of ou. Your inconvenience in no way outweighs your responsibility as a driver.
The average driver dose not in any way shape or form have a legal right to abdicate their responsibility to google.
If he was driving towards the bridge without the ability to see it was out. He was driving in a way that means any pedestrian was t risk from his actions.
I fully agree. I also hate Google and will look for any reason to hate on them more, however in this context they aren’t at fault. You’re the one driving and operating the machine. The app is literally “guidance”. It didn’t order him to drive over the bridge 🤣
That's ridiculous, but I think the title makes it sound a lot more ridiculous than it actually is.
If he could just drive off a collapsed bridge without any warnings someone has clearly not taken their responsibility.
If there's a lack of signage and road blocks, and the map says the road is fine, I can see how one would make such an error.
I don't agree google maps should be held accountable here, but if this bridge has been collapsed for a decade, I can see why someone would want to at least pose the question.
I would agree, however if this statement from the article can be proven:
Then there might be an argument that Google was negligent in not updating it's maps. I'd agree that it's a weak argument and that the Terms of Service likely contains a clause like "you are responsible to watch out for road conditions". But, if the bridge has been out for a decade and multiple attempts to update Google about the collapsed bridge had been made, that may rise to the level of negligence.
I encountered this issue too. An overpass near me was demolished but Google Maps was still showing it there. I submitted an edit and included a link to the state DOT's website about the project that clearly stated the overpass would be permanently demolished and not replaced. My edit was rejected.
Keep in mind it's not an all or nothing thing, they'll assign percentages of fault. It's also important that they name name basically anybody involved because the others will try to blame Google to shift fault off of themselves.
Effectively you want to name everybody possible so that they all fight it out.
All signs and barriers kept getting moved/stolen.
If the bridge was no longer there why wasn't there massive unmovable concrete barriers in the road?
I imagine Google maps gets it's data mostly from municipal and regional open data sources which often have downloadable road information.
If that's the case no one in the city's GIS department ever disconnected the road to show it was no longer connected, as they may never have been notified since people likely don't ever think to notify the GIS guys of unplanned changes to road systems.
I wonder if a HOA owns the land
This is what I was thinking, suing Google sounds like a cash grab as there's government agencies and possibly private land owners responsible for putting up barriers and signs warning the bridge is out. Google maps is useful, but you still have to use some sense rather than blindly following it, heck, I've run into cases where it can't figure out how to get to a street (that actually happened yesterday).
Directing people onto a road that has had a collapsed bridge for a decade, despite numerous reports that the bridge is collapsed, does not leave them blameless.
I am with you 100%. Expecting Google to be responsible for road maintenance is a frivolous. Google will sue them for legal costs.
Absolutely not. Google played a part in causing this death, it might have been a minor part, but it was a party in the death. The court will decide how much.
This isn't a frivolous claim, this is Google not being able to maintain their maps safely. Google needs to put more resources into map maintenance, and respond when people submit safety issues with their mapping data.