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

Discuss!

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
34 points
*

Did you read the article?

neither the destroyed bridge nor the road leading to it had any barriers or warning signs to alert drivers of the hazard.

It was also raining and at night, so he likely had no way to know the bridge was gone until it would have been too late to stop.

permalink
report
parent
reply
52 points
*

Doesn’t sound like google’s fault, does it?

The article even mentions that other entities are sued but oh that sweet headline.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

The bridge was broken years though, so Google should not have been using it for routes. The country is definitely at fault for not having signs up, but Google isn’t blameless in this.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-6 points

The company literally directed this man to his death. Why are all these commenters going to bat for a trillion dollar company that refused to pay a programmer for the ten seconds it would take to fix thee issue?

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

Yeah, suing google makes as much sense as suing the car maker for not making the car fly.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

No??? It’s perfectly reasonable to sue Google here, considering locals had been asking the company to update the map for nigh on ten years. It’s negligence on their part at that point. When it’s dark and raining, you can and should expect that your GPS won’t lead you across a bridge that collapsed last decade.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points
*

Yes so this is the on the authority that owns the road if people have been telling Google about it surely the municipal or state or whoever maintains the road was informed and should have made effort to block it off or mark the road as private or whatever. If it is a private road you are still liable if it appears to be access to your property (say for delivery drivers to your mailbox)

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

If you can’t stop within the range of visibility, you’re driving faster than road conditions allow. That part is on the driver. The lack of barriers or warnings is on the municipality.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

I always like to point this out.

In every single driver’s manual, it states having a 4 second window of visibility, minimum. On rainy days/fog/bad weather, more if possible.

That buffer is to help avoid unknown surprises.

permalink
report
parent
reply
33 points
*

So sue the county or who ever is in charge of erecting the barriers. Still not the map’s fault.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-7 points
*

The bridge broke down years ago. Google is absolutely also at fault for sending someone down it, along with whoever didn’t have warnings up. Multiple entities can be at fault here.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

There has never been a guarantee for a map to be absolutely precise and correct. Just because maps today are digital and get updated automatically - or are even something like “live” - does not mean that there can’t be any inaccuracies.

And that’s the reason one never relies on a map alone, but uses it as a guide.

I’ve seen road signs that were simply wrong. Always use a combination of informational input and always be aware of possible flaws.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Given that there weren’t any signs or barriers, it sounds like the local authorities are the ones at fault here. It could even be that that didn’t file the proper paperwork to indicate that it collapsed. Google gets it’s information from some database and if their sources aren’t accurately reporting data as they should, google wouldn’t have any way of knowing that the bridge collapsed. Ultimately, hazards like this should be clearly blocked off. Google doesn’t have the power to do that.

permalink
report
parent
reply

World News

!worldnews@lemmy.ml

Create post

News from around the world!

Rules:

  • Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc

  • No NSFW content

  • No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc

Community stats

  • 5.7K

    Monthly active users

  • 11K

    Posts

  • 118K

    Comments