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

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

Discuss!

  • yyyesss?@lemmy.world
    126·
    1 year ago

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

    Well it seems clear who is actually to blame here.

    • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
      5512·
      1 year ago

      Seems like most of the blame goes there but

      a bridge that had collapsed nearly a decade earlier.

      Lawyers for the Paxsons allege that several people have tried to flag the washed-out bridge to Google and have included email correspondence between a Hickory resident who tried to use the “suggest an edit” feature in 2020 to get the company to address the issue. Google never responded to the suggestion, allege attorneys.

      It’s collapsed a decade ago and they’ve even tried to get Google to mark it so on their maps, unsuccessfully. Google must have some responsibility to the maps and routing.

      • morry040@kbin.social
        182·
        1 year ago

        Please refer to the Google Maps Terms of Service: https://www.google.com/help/terms_maps/
        By using the service, every user agrees to these terms.

        Section 3:
        Actual Conditions; Assumption of Risk. When you use Google Maps/Google Earth’s map data, traffic, directions, and other content, you may find that actual conditions differ from the map results and content, so exercise your independent judgment and use Google Maps/Google Earth at your own risk. You’re responsible at all times for your conduct and its consequences.

          • morry040@kbin.social
            53·
            1 year ago

            As your own link states:
            Ironclad is not a law firm, and this post does not constitute or contain legal advice. To evaluate the accuracy, sufficiency, or reliability of the ideas and guidance reflected here, or the applicability of these materials to your business, you should consult with a licensed attorney. Use of and access to any of the resources contained within Ironclad’s site do not create an attorney-client relationship between the user and Ironclad.

        • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
          73·
          1 year ago

          You can’t just guide someone off a cliff and say “hey, I said I wasn’t sure if that’s the route, so I have zero responsibility”. The idea that that terms of service absolve them of any part in it is just lol

          • Neve8028@lemm.ee
            92·
            1 year ago

            If that person drives off a cliff because they trust a gps over their own eyes, then that’s fully their issue.

            • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
              101·
              1 year ago

              It was a dark and rainy night and he was following his GPS which led him down a concrete road to a bridge that dropped off into a river

              I think that might’ve hampered his ability to see well. Not sure how visible the drop off is in general, not to mention on a rainy night, so it could look like everything is fine and then the bridge just drops off to nothing, so it isn’t necessarily a simple case of “should’ve stopped if he couldn’t see” either.

              In any case, even though the “issue” is undoubtedly his since he died and if you mean responsibility then of course everyone is responsible for their driving. I’m just saying that (imo obviously) there’s other parties responsible here too. Municipality/landowners for not fixing, marking etc the bridge so this doesn’t happen. Driver for their part in the actual driving and decision made during it. But also Maps for the routing and not fixing the map even though they were informed of the issue. Since we don’t know the specifics it’s impossible to say specifically how much each part contributed, but I’d say most of the responsibility is on the municipality.

              • Neve8028@lemm.eeEnglish
                81·
                1 year ago

                Since we don’t know the specifics it’s impossible to say specifically how much each part contributed, but I’d say most of the responsibility is on the municipality.

                I agree entirely. The local authorities should clearly block off and indicate hazards like this.

                  • juliebean@lemm.ee
                    4·
                    1 year ago

                    the headline only mentions google, because that’s the sensational part, but the article mentions that the suit does name other defendants. yes, more than one party is culpable. this death required several parties being negligent in order to pull off.

                  • Neve8028@lemm.eeEnglish
                    2·
                    1 year ago

                    Huh? I mean I’d argue that the local authorities have the most responsibility in this case. I don’t really think google is too responsible here. I guess you could make an argument that people tried reporting it but ultimately the local authorities should have clearly blocked it off. It’s really no different than using an old physical map; it shows you the way but things change so you always need to use discretion. I can’t count how many times I’ve followed my GPS only to be blocked by construction or something along those lines. In those situations, there needs to be clear signage or a barricade which is basically what I’m arguing is applicable here.

            • juliebean@lemm.ee
              3·
              1 year ago

              i seriously doubt that he saw that the bridge was out, and then chose to trust the gps anyway. you’re attacking a straw man, and the real man isn’t even alive to defend himself. every time you go around a blind corner at more than 5kph, you’re trusting that nobody built a brick wall across the roadway since your last visit. it seems far more likely that, due to the particular geometry of the situation and the generally poor visibility noted in the article, that he did not realize until it was too late.

              • Neve8028@lemm.eeEnglish
                2·
                1 year ago

                i seriously doubt that he saw that the bridge was out, and then chose to trust the gps anyway

                Well yeah, in the article it says that visibility was bad. I was more just making the point that discretion is important when using a GPS. That said, I’d say that the local authorities fucked up the most. A bridge collapsed a decade ago and it’s not blocked off? It should be obvious that you can’t drive that way.

      • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
        81·
        1 year ago

        I’d say municipality/landowners, Google and the driver themself.

        Municipality, land owners for not marking it, fixing it, making sure nobody mistakenly drives there. Google for routing him over it. Also the driver too for their part. Though not knowing the specifics it’s hard to say how much responsibility everyone has exactly but I’d say most of it lies on the municipality/landowners. Depending on who is supposed to mark those things over there.

          • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
            111·
            1 year ago

            Not necessarily. Firstly because I don’t actually think there is any requirement that maps are 100% accurate, Google never a claim made anywhere that they are flawless. Secondly because if the city / town / local authority hasn’t put up signs, it’s entirely possible that they haven’t informed map makers either.

            So map makers are not responsible for inaccuracies in their map, and even if they were responsible, they may not have been told.

            There’s levels of culpability and in this scenario Google seem to be right at the bottom, if on the list at all.

          • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
            32·
            1 year ago

            Not really. I think they have a part of the responsibility but as with previous similar cases, I don’t think they’ll see any legal consequences.