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

Discuss!

  • HumanPenguin
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    resulting (on their part) in a person’s death.

    Nope.

    If the bridge had collapsed a few hours ago. No one would know. Due to this being a real risk. Just like anyone reading an older paper map. The driver of any car is entirely responsible for looking where they are going. Not some 3rd party navigation source.

    Evidence that google is crap. In no way shape or form makes them legally responsible for your visual attention while driving. You are.

    And google has faced these cases in a number of nations. Through out the erly addoption of GPS navigation in the 2000s. We saw many cases of folks driving into lakes and rivers. Because they were stupid enouth to trust the GPS system. Rather then use the minimal common sense of watching where they are driving.

    Google map quest and all others never faced and requirement to take responsibility for drivers inability to drive.

    After a decade. The local authority bears responsibility for failing to signpost. Or hell fix th fucking bridge. But even then nope if your driving, how long its been down. In no way relieves you of the standard job. Of watching where the hell you are going. Just means the local auth need to lose there jobs/ 10 years ago.

    Guess what. Old folks crossing the road and falling over. Can happen with little notice. But if you come around a corner. And are not paying attention to the road. The fact that a little old lady fell and knocked herself out. Guess who is legally responsible for failing to drive safly when you crush the poor ladies head.

    As someone with mobility and vision issues. Who is at high risk of losing my balance when travelling. It really fucks me off how many drivers fail to realise. They are responsible for driving a multi ton potential killing machine. And share the environment with the whole of society.

    As soon as they abdicate that responsibility. Thay are basically saying people like me must remain locked in our houses.

    • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      Of course they had a part in the death. They routed him over a broken bridge. That’s their part of it. And not fixing the map after being told about the issue. Thinking they didn’t have any part in this seems bizarre.

      • Echo Dot
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        There’s two problems here.

        Firstly the map is out of date.

        Secondly the road wasn’t blocked off.

        The map been out of date is not criminal there’s no legal requirement that maps are accurate. However there is a legal requirement that a road is blocked off.

        It’s the state that’s ultimately responsible not some GPS company. The above response right, how does it make any difference how long the bridge has been out for? Google aren’t actually responsible for updating a section of their map, Yes it would be great if they would do it, but they’re not actually legally required to do it.

        • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          “It’s not criminal so they didn’t have any part or responsibility” is something I don’t understand. Of course the routing was part of the reason this happened. Municipality’s/landowner’s part is how they hadn’t closed to road, put up signage etc. Google’s part is the bad routing. Driver’s part is well, the ultimately the driving. Thinking the routing had no part in the death just doesn’t make sense to me.

          how does it make any difference how long the bridge has been out for

          Ample time and opportunity to fix it, even being told about the issue. Of course the time makes a difference, if the bridge had collapsed 15 minutes prior then it would be less bad on Google’s side for not having made the change.

          Google aren’t actually responsible for updating a section of their map, Yes it would be great if they would do it, but they’re not actually legally required to do it.

          Of course there’s responsibility for the bad routing, even if they’re not legally required to update the map/routing. I doubt the case against Google goes anywhere but to me it seems obvious they share a part of the responsibility for their routing.