[cromwellian]

What if the guy was using paper maps? If this was 30 years ago would paper nap publisher be liable?

When you are driving, you’re responsible for being aware of the road. If you drive over a dangerous road that has no visible signs of it being dangerous, then it’s the government’s fault, or if a private road, the owner’s fault.

[dfdsafsadf2]

That's not really close to what's going on. There's the normal user's presumption that Google is up to date, for instance. And Google takes steps to fulfill that, for instance by providing live traffic data and other road hazards warnings. Not to mention that people stepped forward with evidence saying they informed Google.

Whether that nuance really matters is up to the courts I guess. But I don't think this is in the same ballpark as a decades-old map where the average user wouldn't presume it's up to date.

[yreg]

>normal user's presumption that Google is up to date

I don't think that's a reasonable presumption. I have experienced Google maps being inaccurate countless times and surely so have the others. I doubt Google guarantees in any way that the maps are up to date and it would be unreasonable to expect that.

What is, however, reasonable to expect — is that the government blocks the road to a collapsed bridge.

[Elidrake42]

Knowing that a danger exists within the offering of your product and doing nothing to mitigate or remove the issue absolutely makes you, in part, liable. Do others in this situation share liability? Absolutely.

[sfn42]

Google maps being wrong is not a danger, it is an inconvenience. Drivers are responsible for their own driving, no map app is perfect. It is completely unreasonable to assume or expect that Google Maps routes are always correct and safe.

[autoexec]

> What if the guy was using paper maps?

Paper maps don't advertise themselves has having up to the minute information and continuous updates. Nobody expects a paper map to have the most up to date information. When someone uses a paper map they do so with that understanding.

People do expect google to know when there's a traffic jam and they expect google to update their maps with the data consumers provide to them.

[relativ575]

They may have real time traffic information, but please show where Google advertise Map has up to the minute accuracy, for the entirely map. Even if it does, things happen. What if the road collapsed 10 mins ago? Would you be blindly following the map's direction, regardless of what you do or do not see?

> they expect google to update their maps with the data consumers provide to them.

They should keep the map up to dated, Google is clearly not up the task. Liability is another matter. No way they should be liable. The lawsuit is frivolous.

[PeterisP]

If the publisher published a new paper map release, including that bridge 2 years after the publisher was explicitly notified of the problem, and someone died using that new map, I wouldn't be surprised if they would get sued just as Google is now.