You Can't Sue Google If You Get Hit By A Car While Following Google Walking Directions
from the in-case-you-were-wondering dept
Last year, we had the bizarre story of a woman who sued Google after she got hit by a car, while following Google's (beta) walking directions feature. The directions put her on a rural highway with no sidewalk or crosswalk, and as she crossed the street, she got hit. She sued both the driver and Google, but the Google part was what got the attention. The woman's lawyer tried to defend the lawsuit in the face of a lot of mocking, by claiming that Google somehow had responsibility here. When this case got attention, Danny Sullivan did a bang up job pulling images of the intersection from Google Street View, which suggest that this intersection was pretty obviously not designed for pedestrian crossing:
In order to assert a claim for negligence against Google Rosenberg had to show that Google owed her a duty. The court applies a four factor test to determine whether Google owes Rosenberg a duty and concludes that Google does not owe a duty. Rosenberg did not have a special relationship with Google. Rosenberg argued that in other cases courts have held service providers liable for negligently providing services to customers, but the court says that this duty is minimal or non-existent when a publisher or other information provider "publishes information to the general public."It's always nice to see a court agree with what basic common sense tells you.
The court also notes that the fact that an injury is unlikely to occur counsels against finding a duty. Although Rosenberg alleged that an accident is more likely to occur along a rural highway such as the one she was on, the court says that an accident involving a pedestrian likely involves the pedestrian's own breach of their duty to yield to cars on the road
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: google maps, liability, walking
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Other Products?
I wonder if this reasoning could be applied to other products as well, such that "duty is minimal or non-existent when a producer or other product provider "provides the product to the general public."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Again
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100602/0259499654.shtml
While I agree this woman did not use common sense, the excuse that there were no crosswalks or sidewalks is a straw man argument.
Most of rural Pa, western Pa, Lancaster county, to be exact (The link above has my comments from when I lived in the Pottstown area of Pa.) have no crosswalks or sidewalks. So what, people cant travel by foot? What about horse and buggy?
Also go to google maps and do a 180 from the view of the stop sign. It is quite obvious that there is a community that uses these roads for pedestrian traffic. Look at the two guys walking down the street.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=96+Daly+Street,+Park+City,+Utah& amp;daddr=1710+Prospector+Avenue,+Park+City,+Utah&hl=en&geocode=FZ0WbAId07Za-SkHMelxv3JShzEh edu1VMYxdw%3BFRNzbAIdCqha-SklNRqTXW1ShzFgleT-h7NYoQ&mra=ls&dirflg=w&sll=40.64968,-111.49 8914&sspn=0.02836,0.052314&ie=UTF8&ll=40.648953,-111.498203&spn=0,0.001635&t=h&a mp;z=20&layer=c&cbll=40.648896,-111.498289&panoid=BVFG5vvK8yfVi1TcqM8MXw&cbp=12,40.3 2,,0,5
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Again
Even better, even the litigator's photographs show, very slightly, the SIDEWALK just to left of the trees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Again
How funny that your first sentence bashes Mike's "straw man", and then you go right ahead and propose your own straw man.
As someone else who grew up in rural PA who would sometimes walk or ride a bicycle to his friends' houses, I can tell you that when I walked on the road, I made sure to get the hell out of the way of cars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Common Sense is Not That Common
Sorry you got hurt miss. Next time look twice before crossing a roadway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kid: "Mom! Can I go skate at Dead Man's Canyon?"
Mom: "No, It's way too dangerous!"
Kid: "But Mom! All my friends are doing it!"
Mom: "If all of your friends jumped off a bridge, would you jump too?"
-- Kid goes to his bedroom, grumbling.
Current times:
Kid: "Mom! Can I go skate at Dead Man's Canyon?"
Mom: "No, It's way too dangerous!"
Kid: "But Mom! All my friends are doing it!"
Mom: "If all of your friends jumped off a bridge, would you jump too?"
Kid: "Yes! And then I'd sue them for leading me there, even though the dangers were very clear to me and there were signs saying "Danger: Do not jump!""
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait What?
How could that happen?�
[ link to this | view in chronology ]