this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2023
147 points (92.5% liked)

World News

32048 readers
1160 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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 comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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Firstly the map is out of date.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The map been out of date is not criminal there's no legal requirement that maps are accurate.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.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 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.