Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Pedestrian Follows Google Map, Gets Run Over, Sues

Posted by Soulskill on from the america-amazes-me-sometimes dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "The Toronto Star reports that a Utah woman is suing Google for more than $100,000 in damages, claiming its maps function gave her walking directions that led her onto a major highway, where she was struck by a car. Lauren Rosenberg sought directions between two addresses in Utah about 3 kilometers apart and the top result suggested that she follow a busy rural highway for several hundred meters. The highway did not have sidewalks or any other pedestrian-friendly amenities, and Rosenberg was struck by a car. Rosenberg filed suit against both the driver of the car that struck her and Google, claiming both carried responsibility in her injury. Her lawyers claim Google is liable because it did not warn her that the route would not offer a safe place for a pedestrian to walk. Google has pointed out that the directions Rosenberg sought come with a warning of caution for pedestrians, but Rosenberg claims that she accessed the Maps function on her Blackberry mobile device, where it did not include the warning."

11 of 699 comments (clear)

  1. Re:So.... by frozentier · · Score: 3, Informative

    IS the driver liable if she's just walking aimlessly down a highway? Where I'm from, it's actually illegal to walk down a highway with no sidewalk.

  2. Whatever happened to common sense? by illumnatLA · · Score: 5, Informative

    Really... jeeze... What ever happened to common sense. If it looks dangerous... it probably is. If her Blackberry told her to insert her arm into an industrial shredder would she have done that as well?

    Take a look at this... this is the road in question... There was plenty of room on the left side of the street to walk without being anywhere near the road.

    I really hope this gets thrown out of court. People need to take responsibility for their own stupidity.

    --
    Web hosting that doesn't suck!Dreamhost
    1. Re:Whatever happened to common sense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Take a look at this... this is the road in question... [google.com] There was plenty of room on the left side of the street to walk without being anywhere near the road."

      It's much worse than that. There's a walking/cycling trail that parallels most of her route, if the route indicated on the map is correct. Take a look. In many cases it was only a few steps from the road. She could SEE a safe, non-car route paralleling hers, but did not avail herself of it. From the described route, she walked right past the entrance to the trail and stayed on the road. She took the "industrial shredder" option by following the blue line instead. Maybe you could fault Google for not pointing out the trail, but it was RIGHT THERE in plain sight. No, I'll stay on the busy road with no sidewalk.

      I'm sure the locals and the municipality are saying "Why the !#%!%$! did we build these stupid trails if people aren't going to use them?"

  3. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Where I am the major highways only run to areas that are far enough apart that you couldn't really walk along a highway to any meaningful destination. It is very much illegal to walk or ride a bike on them.

  4. Re:For serious? by Spatial · · Score: 5, Informative

    Warning: Breathe regularly to prevent asphyxiation.

    Caution: If you are undergoing fluid immersion, avoid breathing temporarily to avoid drowning.

  5. Re:Oncoming Traffic Re:For serious? by Sebilrazen · · Score: 4, Informative

    No, the post you're replying to is correct, pedestrians walk against traffic, bicyclists ride with traffic.

    --
    "There are no facts, only interpretations." --Friedrich Nietzsche.
  6. Re:For serious? by cob666 · · Score: 3, Informative

    On the page with the directions, if you click on the bicycling icon you get different directions that avoid that road.

    --
    Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
  7. Re:For serious? by CronoCloud · · Score: 5, Informative

    Paris has a disadvantage compared to Chicago...history. Paris was a city when Chicago was a marsh full of wild onions.

  8. Re:Oncoming Traffic Re:For serious? by cynyr · · Score: 4, Informative

    at least in my state(MN, USA) it's not that "bicyclists ride with traffic", it's "bicyclists are traffic, except where prohibited"(highways and such, they have signs at every entrance)

    --
    All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
  9. Re:For serious? by Kitkoan · · Score: 4, Informative

    if Google had told her jump on a bridge...

    So, *this* is why they removed "Swim across the Atlantic Ocean -- 3462 miles" as part of the route to go from Boston, MA to London, UK! ;-)

    Paul B.

    Yeah, but you still get to kayak 5404km across the Pacific Ocean when going from Toyko to Sidney. (step number 48)

    --
    Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
  10. Re:For serious? by drew30319 · · Score: 4, Informative
    In cases like this defendants sometimes file a motion for summary judgment stating that there is no cause of action.

    Wikipedia has an article that goes into greater detail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment

    --
    JAGga.me ----> Producing video games addressing emotional health and wellness issues affecting teens.