Because they knew they were directing drivers to a collapsed bridge for 2 years and did nothing about it. Sure enough, someone eventually went over it. There is no legal principle saying that both Google and the municipality can't be jointly liable.
When you are driving, you’re responsible for being aware of the road. If you drive over a dangerous road that has no visible signs of it being dangerous, then it’s the government’s fault, or if a private road, the owner’s fault.
Whether that nuance really matters is up to the courts I guess. But I don't think this is in the same ballpark as a decades-old map where the average user wouldn't presume it's up to date.
I don't think that's a reasonable presumption. I have experienced Google maps being inaccurate countless times and surely so have the others. I doubt Google guarantees in any way that the maps are up to date and it would be unreasonable to expect that.
What is, however, reasonable to expect — is that the government blocks the road to a collapsed bridge.
>What is, however, reasonable to expect — is that the government blocks the road to a collapsed bridge.
That's completely besides the point because they can both be liable. So saying that the gov't has fault doesn't rebut that Google does too. After all, the gov't was not the proximate cause of the incident, as they did not send him over the bridge, that was Google.
It's a bit obnoxious when people come on here to argue about negligence while completely ignoring what negligence entails, the distinctions in how it operates, etc, while pretending they are keyboard attorneys.
That's not at all besides the point. When I make my own navigation software and publish it on the internet, I'm not liable for keeping the roads safe.
I defer that responsibility to the government. I rely on the roads being safe because there are other institutions responsible for ensuring that.
"But it was dark and blah blah" Irrelevant. If you can't see you can't drive. If you can see 10 meters ahead you go slow enough that you can stop in 5 meters. Yes that's slow. Yes it's inconvenient. Guess what. Dying or killing someone is slower and more inconvenient.
That's the end of this discussion. Everyone who thinks these rules are unreasonable are irresponsible drivers who shouldn't be allowed to drive. Yes, I know that's like 70% of drivers if not more. Doesn't change the fact that 99% of traffic accidents are caused by this kind of negligence and entirely avoidable if people would just pull their heads out of their asses and take proper responsibility.
Traffic kills more people than anything else in modern society. Nearly 4000 people every single day. That's 2-3 people every single minute. Multiple people probably died while you were reading this comment. Because people don't pay attention to the road, people don't appreciate the danger they are putting themselves and others in.
The fact that "you should drive safer" is in any way controversial is just a testament to how fucking dumb people are.
Paper maps don't advertise themselves has having up to the minute information and continuous updates. Nobody expects a paper map to have the most up to date information. When someone uses a paper map they do so with that understanding.
People do expect google to know when there's a traffic jam and they expect google to update their maps with the data consumers provide to them.
> they expect google to update their maps with the data consumers provide to them.
They should keep the map up to dated, Google is clearly not up the task. Liability is another matter. No way they should be liable. The lawsuit is frivolous.
This isn't a lawsuit where the road collapsed 10 minutes ago. It's a lawsuit where the road collapsed 9 years ago, and Google had at least 2 years of notice that it was sending people over the collapsed bridge. In your scenario, neither the gov't nor google would be at fault for their lack of warning. But that has no bearing on this situation, because it's not a lawsuit where the bridge collapsed 10 minutes ago.
In the lawsuit, the plaintiff is going to establish that Google had notice. A defense of this, that Google doesn't update the map every 10 minutes is frivolous, and no judge will allow an expert to testify on that point because the issue isn't how often Google updates its maps, but what Google does to update its maps after its been informed that the map is hazardous.
>They should keep the map up to dated, Google is clearly not up the task. Liability is another matter. No way they should be liable. The lawsuit is frivolous.
It's not at all and you seem to have an uninformed view of the the relevant legal principles.