Tech company faces negligence lawsuit after Philip Paxson died from driving off a North Carolina bridge destroyed years ago

Discuss!

  • morry040
    link
    fedilink
    171 year ago

    Please refer to the Google Maps Terms of Service: https://www.google.com/help/terms_maps/
    By using the service, every user agrees to these terms.

    Section 3:
    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.

      • morry040
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        As your own link states:
        Ironclad is not a law firm, and this post does not constitute or contain legal advice. To evaluate the accuracy, sufficiency, or reliability of the ideas and guidance reflected here, or the applicability of these materials to your business, you should consult with a licensed attorney. Use of and access to any of the resources contained within Ironclad’s site do not create an attorney-client relationship between the user and Ironclad.

    • RaivoKulli
      link
      fedilink
      41 year ago

      You can’t just guide someone off a cliff and say “hey, I said I wasn’t sure if that’s the route, so I have zero responsibility”. The idea that that terms of service absolve them of any part in it is just lol

      • @Neve8028@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        71 year ago

        If that person drives off a cliff because they trust a gps over their own eyes, then that’s fully their issue.

        • RaivoKulli
          link
          fedilink
          81 year ago

          It was a dark and rainy night and he was following his GPS which led him down a concrete road to a bridge that dropped off into a river

          I think that might’ve hampered his ability to see well. Not sure how visible the drop off is in general, not to mention on a rainy night, so it could look like everything is fine and then the bridge just drops off to nothing, so it isn’t necessarily a simple case of “should’ve stopped if he couldn’t see” either.

          In any case, even though the “issue” is undoubtedly his since he died and if you mean responsibility then of course everyone is responsible for their driving. I’m just saying that (imo obviously) there’s other parties responsible here too. Municipality/landowners for not fixing, marking etc the bridge so this doesn’t happen. Driver for their part in the actual driving and decision made during it. But also Maps for the routing and not fixing the map even though they were informed of the issue. Since we don’t know the specifics it’s impossible to say specifically how much each part contributed, but I’d say most of the responsibility is on the municipality.

          • @Neve8028@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            61 year ago

            Since we don’t know the specifics it’s impossible to say specifically how much each part contributed, but I’d say most of the responsibility is on the municipality.

            I agree entirely. The local authorities should clearly block off and indicate hazards like this.

              • @juliebean@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                41 year ago

                the headline only mentions google, because that’s the sensational part, but the article mentions that the suit does name other defendants. yes, more than one party is culpable. this death required several parties being negligent in order to pull off.

              • @Neve8028@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                2
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Huh? I mean I’d argue that the local authorities have the most responsibility in this case. I don’t really think google is too responsible here. I guess you could make an argument that people tried reporting it but ultimately the local authorities should have clearly blocked it off. It’s really no different than using an old physical map; it shows you the way but things change so you always need to use discretion. I can’t count how many times I’ve followed my GPS only to be blocked by construction or something along those lines. In those situations, there needs to be clear signage or a barricade which is basically what I’m arguing is applicable here.

        • @juliebean@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          31 year ago

          i seriously doubt that he saw that the bridge was out, and then chose to trust the gps anyway. you’re attacking a straw man, and the real man isn’t even alive to defend himself. every time you go around a blind corner at more than 5kph, you’re trusting that nobody built a brick wall across the roadway since your last visit. it seems far more likely that, due to the particular geometry of the situation and the generally poor visibility noted in the article, that he did not realize until it was too late.

          • @Neve8028@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 year ago

            i seriously doubt that he saw that the bridge was out, and then chose to trust the gps anyway

            Well yeah, in the article it says that visibility was bad. I was more just making the point that discretion is important when using a GPS. That said, I’d say that the local authorities fucked up the most. A bridge collapsed a decade ago and it’s not blocked off? It should be obvious that you can’t drive that way.