Technology

34781 readers

384 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.

Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.

Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

163

Google accused of directing motorist to drive off collapsed bridge (www.bbc.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

73 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Philip Paxson's family are suing the company over his death, alleging that Google negligently failed to show the bridge had fallen nine years earlier.

Mr Paxson died in September 2022 after attempting to drive over the damaged bridge in Hickory, North Carolina.

A spokesperson for Google said the company was reviewing the allegations.

The case was filed in civil court in Wake County on Tuesday.

Mr Paxson, a father of two, was driving home from his daughter's ninth birthday party at a friend's house and was in an unfamiliar neighbourhood at the time of his death, according to the family's lawsuit.

His wife had driven his two daughters home earlier, and he stayed behind to help clean up.

"Unfamiliar with local roads, he relied on Google Maps, expecting it would safely direct him home to his wife and daughters," lawyers for the family said in a statement announcing the lawsuit.

"Tragically, as he drove cautiously in the darkness and rain, he unsuspectingly followed Google's outdated directions to what his family later learned for nearly a decade was called the 'Bridge to Nowhere,' crashing into Snow Creek, where he drowned."

Local residents had repeatedly contacted Google to have them change their online maps after the bridge collapsed in 2013, the suit claims.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] sugarfree 39 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You'd think after nine years the city would do something about the bridge.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yeah, how's it Google's fault that there were no signs? blocks? etc.

9 years is excessive? sure maybe.

But bridge collapse that evening while approaching it? Google's Fault? No...

So where do you draw that line where it's Google's Fault?

1 day? 1 month? 1 year?

Yeah, you can't reasonable put a timeline on something like that.

What happens if it was found out dude used an old paper map? Gonna sue that map company too?

Just because Google has the ability to update maps quicker than old paper, doesn't mean they are suddenly obligated to.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So where do you draw that line where it’s Google’s Fault?

1 day? 1 month? 1 year?

Why use these numbers when the number in question is 9 years?

Yeah, you can’t reasonable put a timeline on something like that.

I can certainly say that 9 years is too long to fail to update a map that contains a dangerous route.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I guess you missed the point.

Yes, we can all certainly say that's too long.

But carry that thought farther as I explained.

If you are going to make someone legally responsible for something like this, you need to draw a line where it is.
So where do you draw that line?

You reasonable can not, and that is because the premise that Google should be responsible for such a thing is ridiculous.

This case is just a standard US justice system where they just 'Sue everyone' and see where the chips fall.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

This is a ridiculous argument. We set limits on things all the time. That the limit will be arbitrary doesn't mean there simply cannot be liability. 1 year is fine, 6 months is fine, hell, 1 month is fine. The company's internal processes will expand or contract to fit legal liability.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

You don't need to draw a line for this case. You just need to decide if 9 years is too long.