Woman Sues Google After She Follows Google Maps Directions And Gets Hit By A Car

from the personal-responsibility? dept

Tue, Jun 1st 2010 7:38am — Mike Masnick

There have been plenty of stories over the years of drivers blindly following their GPS over a cliff or onto railroad tracks. After doing such things, it may be natural for the driver to blame the technology, though it's unlikely to help you out much in court. However, it appears that one pedestrian has taken things a step further. After using Google's "still in beta" (for a good reason) "walking directions" while trying to get somewhere in Park City, Utah, she found herself on a highway, where she was hit by a car. So, in response, she's suing both Google and the driver of the car. Danny Sullivan explores the issue in much greater detail at that link, and comes to the same conclusion I assume many of you already jumped to: at some point, you just have to assume some sense of responsibility if you're the pedestrian. Sullivan pops out the following two Street View images showing the road in question, and wonders why the woman didn't realize that this road was not designed to be crossed. The first photo is of the intersection she would come to before crossing (note: no crosswalk):

And then, if she did manage to rush across that street, this is what she would see on the other site:

At some point, common sense is supposed to kick in and the pedestrian says, "hey, this is not designed for walking."

But, the woman who filed this lawsuit seems to want to blame everyone else for her own decision to try to cross a street that is obviously not for pedestrian crossing. In fact, the full lawsuit seems to contradict itself at points, since it seeks to blame both the driver who hit her for driving too fast... but at the same time seeks to blame Google for putting her on "a roadway that exhibits motor vehicles traveling at high speeds, that is not reasonably safe for pedestrians."

If the road itself involved cars that were too fast for pedestrians, then why is she also blaming the driver for driving too fast? On top of that, the lawsuit asserts that Google should have known that the road was not designed for pedestrians. Which leads me to ask a simple question: if this woman, who was standing on the side of the road herself didn't make that judgment, despite all the evidence in front of her, why does she assume that some routing algorithm at Google should have reasonably known that fact?

In the end, this looks like yet another case of a Steve Dallas lawsuit, where a big company is sued for someone's own mistakes, because that big company has lots of money.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: blame, directions, google maps, walking
Companies: google

70 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Pixelation, 1 Jun 2010 @ 7:41am

Lawyers making busy work
And many lawyers wonder why people think lawyers should be shot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ima Fish (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 7:46am

"Which leads me to ask a simple question: if this woman, who was standing on the side of the road herself didn't make that judgment, despite all the evidence in front of her, why does she assume that some routing algorithm at Google should have reasonably known that fact?"

Your logic is impeccable and irrefutable. Unfortunately for google: "Juries are not held to any rules of logic."
People v. Vaughn, 409 Mich. 463, 465-466 (1980)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2010 @ 8:58am
  
  Re:
  His logic is quite poor on this point, actually. First, he appears to suggest that only one party can be at fault. That is not true as either a factual or legal matter. One such party may very well be the plaintiff, but in most states that doesn't mean others culpable parties get off the hook completely. Second, it is entirely possible that the street was not appropriate for pedestrians when the speed limit is observed, but the car in question was exceeding the limit.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2010 @ 9:05am
    
    Re: Re:
    Sorry, I think I misunderstood or misread the point you (Ima Fish) were making.
    
    My statements stand w/r/t the points discussed in the article
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Richard (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 7:57am

Roads designed for?
Which leads me to ask a simple question: if this woman, who was standing on the side of the road herself didn't make that judgment, despite all the evidence in front of her, why does she assume that some routing algorithm at Google should have reasonably known that fact?
In the UK roads are generally "designed for pedestrians" by default. Roads that are not are generally marked up as such (motorways, clearways etc).
I don't think it's necessarily fair to expect people to deduce by looking that the road isn't suitable for walking - because part of it may look OK but a bit further up it could become unforgiving (seems to be the case here). However this is the responsibility of th4e highway agency - not Google - unless the highways people gave Google the info and they ignored it.

However if she was hit by a car whilst in the middle of the road then clearly it is her fault for not checking traffic before attempting to cross!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 8:04am
  
  Re: Roads designed for?
  Addendum
  
  Actually Google are in the wrong here on one point - they have directed her to walk on the wrong side of the road. According to UK highway code you should walk on the right - equivalent to the left in the US.
  
  However it is the woman's responsibility to obey the highway code - (or whatever the US equivalent is). Google still aren't liable.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2010 @ 8:48am
    
    Re: Re: Roads designed for?
    sadly, googles instructions are pretty clear, cross the road and walk on this side. she did the walking instructions suggested. is she a moron for assuming that google is smarter than she is? or is google ignorant because their walking directions can lead to great risks? put another way, would an individual be found liable if they told her to do the same thing, knowing that it wasnt safe on the other side? google cant slide out just because they are a corporation.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2010 @ 9:22am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Roads designed for?
      SERIOUSLY R YOU AN IDIOT? IF I TELL SOME ONE GO 2 BLOCKS OVER TAKE A RIGHT AND 1 MILE DOWN THE ROAD IS WHERE YOU WANT TO GO, AND I KNOW ITS BUSY STREETS, IM STILL NOT RESPONSIBLE.. FFS COMMON SENSE IS NOT COMMON ANY MORE... IF THE DIRECTIONS SAY RUN DOWN THE HIGHWAY NAKED WITH PANTYHOSE ON YOUR FACE, THIS WILL MAKE YOU INVULNERABLE, WOULD YOU DO IT... ACCORDING TO YOU COMMENTS, YES YOU WOULD, AND GET HIT BY A SEMI, THUS RETIRING YOU FROM THE POPULATION, AND REMOVING YOUR GENES FROM THE POOL...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2010 @ 9:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Roads designed for?
        Calm down. Take a breath. Put down the Caps Lock.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Brian (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 9:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Roads designed for?
        But its cruise control for cool :D
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2010 @ 9:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Roads designed for?
        OH NO, I'M TYPING IN CAPS... NERD PATROL MOUNT UP....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2010 @ 12:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Roads designed for?
        Aside from generally accepted internet ettiquette, the issue of typing in all caps is an objectively optical one: it's much harder to read what you've typed in all caps since the human eye perceives it not as words but as a block of color. Typefaces and fonts are designed to be read in a flowing manner; all caps removes that flow from one letter to another and makes the separations between words blend into each other, thus making it harder to read separate words.
        
        If you want to be understood, make the effort.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - TtfnJohn (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 9:35am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Roads designed for?
      Tell me something.
      
      Is this woman not supposed to take the evidence of her own eyes into account and, presumably, some observation, of the speed of the traffic, before crossing the road to determine for herself if it's safe to cross?
      
      While UK law may be that roads are designed for pedestrians that isn't the case in North America. Then again, this is clearly an arterial highway, complete with at least one left turn bay and a reasonable person (much less dog or cat) would probably come to the conclusion that crossing isn't a good idea or, at least, very dangerous.
      
      I'd have to say she's far more at fault than Google or, perhaps, even the driver of the car.
      
      Reasonable simple fact here. One ton car travelling 55mph wins every time over foolish 125lb human female being where she ought not to be, if she's right or not.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PrometheeFeu (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 2:05pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Roads designed for?
      Honestly, the fact that you received advice should not abolish your judgement. I don't see how that woman can honestly believe that it is anyone's fault but her own for crossing a highway and getting hit by oncoming traffic...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2010 @ 1:21pm
  
  Re: Roads designed for?
  Um that's not an image of where you should walk. It's an image of street view.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steven, 1 Jun 2010 @ 8:04am

Warning
This has been on Google Maps' walking directions for as long as they've been available:

"Walking directions are in beta.
Use caution – This route may be missing sidewalks or pedestrian paths."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2010 @ 8:23am

I think google has been willfully negligent in their walking directions. They should be liable for triple a triple penalty. As the reasonable penalty is a complete refund for the maps service lets calculate the amount. three times zero, carry the zero, add up all the nothings and the total is zippo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Arbiter, 1 Jun 2010 @ 8:24am

Google needs to talk with McDonalds
This would not have happened had Google simply allowed for the lowest, stupidest common denominator. Goto McD's and order HOT coffee or a Hot apple pie and see the warnings, "Caution Hot Coffee is Hot, or Hot apple pie filling is HOT"

Sadly we have come to the time when we have to plan for the duh factor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Brian (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 9:40am
  
  Re: Google needs to talk with McDonalds
  You do realize that the lawsuit you are talking about was NEVER about coffee being hot but the fact that the coffee caused 3rd degree burns and required skin grafts. McDonalds had free refills on coffee and used to keep the coffee right around 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit. By the time the coffee cooled down enough most customers would have left and would not have taken the free refill offered.
  
  The full details:
  http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- theangryintern (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 11:18am
  
  Re: Google needs to talk with McDonalds
  they do have that, though. As Steven was kind enough to point out above, this has been shown on the google maps page for a while when you choose walking directions:
  
  "Walking directions are in beta.
  Use caution – This route may be missing sidewalks or pedestrian paths."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2010 @ 8:25am

And if Google Maps told her to jump off a bridge, would she do it??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 8:32am
  
  Re:
  "And if Google Maps told her to jump off a bridge, would she do it??"
  
  Coming soon, Google's new Google Maps add on: Google Go Fuck Yourself! Yes, now available for all those out there with an IQ below that of my younger dog's testicle, you too can use Google's GFY add on for a myriad of directions to fucking yourself up!
  
  Need directions to jump off a bridge? Think Go Fuck Yourself!
  
  Friend tell you to take a long walk off a short pier, but you don't know how to get there? You should Go Fuck Yourself!
  
  Boss tell you to go to hell, but you don't know how to get there? No problem. Go Fuck Yourself works with our maps of Arkansas! Directions to Hell is a click away!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DH's love child, 1 Jun 2010 @ 8:40am
    
    Re: Re:
    "...Coming soon, Google's new Google Maps add on: Google Go Fuck Yourself!..."
    
    OMG!! I now have to clean the remnants of my lunch off my screen!
    
    Truly classic!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2010 @ 9:30am
    
    Re: Re:
    Well said... *golf applause*
    
    Best statement award: "those out there with an IQ below that of my younger dog's testicle"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 12:22pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Just one testicle...mind you.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - UberFanGirl, 3 Jun 2010 @ 11:57am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Coming soon, Google's new Google Maps add on: Google Go Fuck Yourself!"
    
    lol. too much!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sean, 1 Jun 2010 @ 8:26am

Frivolous
They should make her pay Google's lawyer fees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sergio, 1 Jun 2010 @ 8:35am

New Insult
What's this lady's name, I want to use it to insult people! "Wow, you really pulled a [this lady's name]" or "Nice going [this lady's name]!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Greg, 1 Jun 2010 @ 10:35am
  
  Re: New Insult
  If no one else has replied to this:
  
  According to the filing, her name is Lauren Rosenberg.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 2 Jun 2010 @ 3:19am
    
    Re: Re: New Insult
    So, to use an example from this site, "TAM pulled a Rosenberg again today". I might start using it :)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- No More Common Sense, 8 Jun 2010 @ 10:00am
  
  Re: New Insult
  Looks like her name is Lauren Rosenberg....
  
  "Smooth move, Rosenberg"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 1 Jun 2010 @ 8:38am

Why do people focus on the beta aspect?
I don't see why it should matter if the feature is in beta or not. No technology is perfect and never will be. You and you alone are responsible for your own safety. There should be no way to blame others for your own actions. Unfortunately, this is not the state of the world we live in today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stuart, 1 Jun 2010 @ 8:44am

Need more info.
I need Google to tell me the next time she goes out for a walk so I can fix this issue the way the last driver failed to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
smashmouth (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 8:51am

Can you say, "Bowfinger"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2010 @ 8:54am

I don't quite get exactly how google *could* be liable here.

Say if someone checked for walking directions from location A to location B, and google's instructions told them to walk up to the top of a tall building and then step off the roof, would it be google's fault if someone did it?

I'm asking that seriously, would they be at all liable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2010 @ 9:08am
  
  Re:
  They must've changed it up since, but a couple years ago you could input NY to London in google.maps and get directions that instructed you to swim across the Atlantic, which was funny enough, but then hang a left at France!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - aguywhoneedstenbucks (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 10:29am
    
    Re: Re:
    To get to Sydney, Australia from Texas I have to kayak across the Pacific to Hawaii, kayak to Japan, then kayak to Australia. Estimated time: 55 days 23 hours
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 10:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "To get to Sydney, Australia from Texas I have to kayak across the Pacific to Hawaii, kayak to Japan, then kayak to Australia. Estimated time: 55 days 23 hours"
      
      Ok, I'll time you. Wait, hold on......Go!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mikael (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 3:41pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      @aguywhoneedstenbucks I was actually going to post this until I saw you already did. I noticed this a while back when I got directions from Texas to Hawaii. I just did directions from Anchorage Alaska to Honolulu Hawaii. You apparently can't leave from anywhere but Washington state to kayak across the pacific. At least that's what Google says it the best route.
      
      You can't blame Google for your own stupidity. I don't think it would be too safe to kayak from Washington to Hawaii so I wouldn't do it. Just like how I wouldn't cross a street that Google told me to if I didn't think it was safe.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PRMan, 1 Jun 2010 @ 9:12am
  
  Re:
  Let's say that someone runs a game show and part of the show is to cross a field of land mines for $1 million. Should the contestants really be put into that situation in a civilized society?
  
  What if I tell you to run down this street knowing that there is a blind opening in the street that you will certainly fall into?
  
  "You should check where you walk, moron! Everyone does. It's expected that you look where you're walking!"
  
  At some point (not this woman's case IMO), the person directing someone into a known dangerous situation is liable.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2010 @ 9:18am
    
    Re: Re:
    Well the difference in those would be that the contest is actively encouraging people to do the thing, and telling me to run down a street to somewhere I could get hurt is again actively encouraging me to do something.
    
    That seems to be a different situation than this, or other things like it, where the person getting hurt has actively asked for advice from something. I'm just trying to imagine where the cutoff is. There have been plenty of times where, say, you ask the wrong person for directions and they'll tell you to go drive off a cliff, or something. If the person did then go drive off a cliff, I can't imagine that the person would be liable.
    
    But like you claim, there must be a cutoff somewhere, where the main burden falls on the person giving the instructions rather than the person following them. Where is that cutoff point, though?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 9:21am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "But like you claim, there must be a cutoff somewhere, where the main burden falls on the person giving the instructions rather than the person following them. Where is that cutoff point, though?"
      
      How about at the intent of the advice giver? Not perfect, but certainly would work in this case....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
cj (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 9:05am

sheesh
I have a feeling that woman would of been screwed royally if there had been road crew workers out there putting in new road or something. Would she of gone the same route as Google outlined? Or taken the detour?

I think she would of been stupid enough to take the same Google route.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Technopolitical (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 9:12am

"After doing such things, it may be natural for the driver to blame the technology, though it's unlikely to help you out much in court."
MIKE :"After doing such things, it may be natural for the driver to blame the technology, though it's unlikely to help you out much in court."

ME: You are right here Mike.

You see , there are times we agree !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Technopolitical (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 9:17am

Mike: At some point, +++common sense+++ is supposed to kick in and the pedestrian says, "hey, this is not designed for walking."
Mike: At some point, +++common sense+++ is supposed to kick in and the pedestrian says, "hey, this is not designed for walking."

Me : glad you see "common sense " is a legal principle.

With Piracy vs. copyright law, many folks commenting here miss that point .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- SteelWolf (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 9:42am
  
  Re: Mike: At some point, +++common sense+++ is supposed to kick in and the pedestrian says, "hey, this is not designed for walking."
  Copyright actually contradicts common sense by artificially suspending individuals' rights. Only with copyright does somebody feel entitled to insist that others not share the things they like and enjoy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2010 @ 10:00am
    
    Re: Re: Mike: At some point, +++common sense+++ is supposed to kick in and the pedestrian says, "hey, this is not designed for walking."
    "Only with copyright does somebody feel entitled to insist that others not share the things they like and enjoy."
    
    Only with copyright? This is actually true with any form of property law.
    
    You enjoy my house? Sorry, you can't share it without my permission. You like my car? Same response.
    
    I'm not saying the two are the same in all respects, but they are the same in the characteristic you point out.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Technopolitical (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 1:47pm
    
    Only with copyright does somebody feel entitled to insist that others not share the things they like and enjoy.
    "Only with copyright does somebody feel entitled to insist that others not share the things they like and enjoy."
    
    Ans: the Artist CREATES the ART.
    The Artist control any FULL use , 100 %.
    
    Artists have the RIGHT to totally grant ( or not grant) use , AND to control 100 % that use PRIVILEGE -- except for parody and fair use.
    That is the Basics of copyright Law.
    
    ( "fair use" is a partial excerpt , in most cases ,, academic citation , or for education purposes,, and etc ,, as cited in law.)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PrometheeFeu (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 2:14pm
      
      Re: Only with copyright does somebody feel entitled to insist that others not share the things they like and enjoy.
      the Artist CREATES the ART.
      The Artist control any FULL use , 100 %.
      
      Artists have the RIGHT to totally grant ( or not grant) use , AND to control 100 % that use PRIVILEGE -- except for parody and fair use.
      That is the Basics of copyright Law.
      
      What makes you say that?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
mike allen (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 9:24am

one question
was she looking at google while actually crossing the road? she deserve not to get to the other side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 9:31am
  
  Re: one question
  "was she looking at google while actually crossing the road? she deserve not to get to the other side."
  
  Why did this chick cross the road?
  
  Because Google effing told her to, and Google is God....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nastybutler77 (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 9:44am

Natural selection
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2010 @ 9:49am

We saw this on the news this morning. I asked my 11-year old his opinion. He also says this lady is an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nastybutler77 (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 9:49am

Natural selection FAIL
Well the driver ALMOST did our species a favor...

I wonder if she'll get a Darwin Awards honorable mention?

Hopefully she hasn't spawned yet.

It's only a matter of time before this problem takes care of itself.

Any other snarky evolution comments?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NullOp, 1 Jun 2010 @ 10:10am

Please...
Please, oh please tell me this person has not reproduced as yet!

This is just one in a long line of stories about people more than willing to disconnect their brain and let technology take over. No doubt she's a Democrat!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2010 @ 4:49pm
  
  Re: Please...
  Watch as I take the troll bait!
  
  She must be Democrat or Republican, black, white, orange, green, or brown, spiritual, deeply religious (pick your favorite), or atheist, short, tall, or just plan different. Retards are among us in all aspects of life. To believe Republicans can't do idiotic things like this is blind and stupid. It's almost as dumb as saying "You know she's white because Asian's know better than to walk in front of cars!" Your blind retardation is going to be the death of this country.
  
  Disclaimer: I fucking hate both majority parties in the U.S.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
George, 1 Jun 2010 @ 10:20am

And people are still wondering why the rest of the world calls americans stupid....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a-dub (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 10:57am

She should also sue nature since it's nature's fault she was born this way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Atkray (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 11:21am

The Driver is to blame.
He failed to finish her off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mapper99, 1 Jun 2010 @ 11:49am

Privacy Invasions...
Take a look at these other Google blunders:

http://www.streetviewfunny.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
e100, 1 Jun 2010 @ 12:12pm

Natural selection in action
This seems like a perfect solution to unemployment, overpopulation and would aid in improving the average intelligence of humanity.

Maybe we need GPS systems with more errors, not less.......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ChrisB (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 1:10pm

Waver-Oners
Ever have someone wave you out into traffic while your driving? They stop and wave at you to cut in, or go ahead or whatever. Did you know that if you get into an accident, YOU are liable, not the waver-oner.

Same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
KLM5, 1 Jun 2010 @ 1:40pm

If this gets to court.....
Gee, Google never tells me to stop at stop signs or red lights. It never says don't plow into the car in front of you. Does she have a machine to tell her to breath?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
danny bloom, 2 Jun 2010 @ 9:59pm

lawsuit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
danny bloom, 2 Jun 2010 @ 10:02pm

suit
Two things:
1. notice the woman in the lawsuit it Jewish, I hate to point that out, but her last name does sound Jewish. Not all Jews sue, most don't, but when even one meshuganah lady does sue, it looks bad for all Jews. Why lady, why?

2. her lawyer, Jewish, too? I hope not.

3. After reading Danny Sullivan's great gumshoe work on all this, we came up with a new term "You've been DannySullivan'd".. (one word)... to mean your article has been subjected to a rigorous online gumshoe detective strategy to ascertain just who should have been credit and attributed in the first place. Well done, Danny!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adam, 3 Jun 2010 @ 11:22am

Hmm maybe she thought she was holidaying in Israel again, where since they always have armed soldiers around, she's used to walking wherever she likes, like say through Palestinian homes etc..

You may be chosen and smug but fighting with speeding cars can get gnarly sugarcup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
danny bloom, 3 Jun 2010 @ 8:48pm

Adam and his antisemitic POV, ouch! why?
Adam, above, number 64, re the tech dirt comment, you seemed to be antisemtiic there, are you? tell the truth? it's one thing for me a Jewish bloke, to speak of some Jews' fondness for lawsuits, if this Lauren lady is Jewish we do not even know for sure, ....Not that Christians don't like to sue too, hehe, but then you go and start an anti-israel anit-zionist thing, i smell a rabid antisem, just tell me the truth and why? It's okay to be antisem, many of you are. I am not angry. just curious why you a chrstian have so much hatred for jews. i don't get it. dont have to like them, sure, but hatred? why?

Adam wrote and i comment with CAPS: "Hmm maybe she thought she was holidaying in Israel again, where since they always have armed soldiers around, she's used to walking wherever she likes, like say through Palestinian homes etc.." LOW BLOW, ADAM. WHAT DOES PLO HAVE TO DO WITH THIS?

"You may be chosen IN FACT JEWS DO NOT SAY THEY ARE THE CHOSEN PEOPLE...."THE CHOSEN PEOPLE" MEME ... IT MEANS THEY CHOSE GOD... NOT THAT GOD CHOSE THEM, WAKE UP ADAM....and smug WHO'S SMUG HERE, ADAM? but fighting with speeding cars can get gnarly sugarcup. "
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
charde, 15 Jun 2010 @ 12:28pm

Crosswalk lady
Sh's plain REDICULOUS!!! Like the add says, at some point C0MM0N SENSE should have kicked in and she should have noticed that street wasnt designed for walking! Point Blank! My 11yr old nephew is laughing at this story because even at 11, he knows that highway wasnt for walking!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lucia, 4 Sep 2010 @ 4:36pm

Hehehe
I find this very intertain but I do hope this women was not hurt badly!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sam Grundman, 7 Apr 2020 @ 12:15pm

Who's Really to Blame
First, that intersection has a crosswalk, it's just unmarked. Every intersection has legal crosswalks running from corner to corner.

Second, the first photo also clearly shows a trampled pedestrian trail along the highway, indicating that a good number of people regularly walk along that highway.

So I conclude that walking on that side of the highway is normal.

The real problem is that the state (or city or county) couldn't be bothered to make the highway safe for walking. The other side of the road, where the highway runs up against the wall, demonstrates my point exactly. She should have been suing the owners of the highway and the engineers who designed it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]