Out of Court Settlement
Hmm... $100K or a long expensive legal case? Would Google like to settle? Pull the other one etc.
An LA woman is suing Google after accusing its mapping service of encouraging her to walk along a high speed State Route in Utah. The Salt Lake City Tribune reports that Lauren Rosenberg's suit claims that while visiting Salt Lake City, Utah she used Google Maps via her BlackBerry for directions to to walk from 96 Daly Ave to …
She wasnt directed to a highway. It was a state road. State roads frequently have a high speed limit but are not off limits to pedestrians. Probably because we mistakenly believe that people are still responsible for their own actions or that the person who caused an accident will be held responsible and not a completely blameless party who has deep pockets.
Several years ago my son was sued for a million dollars because he didn't force a girl who had been drinking to accept a ride home, with her car on the back of the tow truck he was driving. When she and her friend refused the ride home, he left them in the parking lot and went to get some sleep. More than an hour later, about 3:30 in the morning (the bar closed at 2:00), and about 15 miles from where he left them in the parking lot, the girl driving crossed the center line and hit another car head on, killing both girls, and seriously injuring the driver of the other car.
Why was he sued? One, he was the last one to admit to talking to them at the bar. When the Highway Patrol was trying to backtrack on their activities, he came forward and told the bears what he knew, and got sued for trying to be a Good Samaritan. Two, he was driving a tow truck... the tow truck company was dragged into the suit as well. The driver of the other car was looking for deep pockets. He was finally dropped from the case, but it cost our car insurance company AND our homeowner's insurance company $10,000 each, plus attorney's fees. The mother of the girl who was driving had to sell her house to pay the biggest portion of the settlement, and the girl had not lived with her mother for several years and had her own insurance on the car.
My son will NEVER offer someone a ride home again.
Good ol' U.S. of A. lawyers eh?
This sort of "someone else is always to blame" attitude is becoming prevalent here in the y.U.K. as well - don't know if the new Coalition of Lesser Evils will take a step back from the Abyss started by the "there's no such thing as Society" woman and dug deeper by the Blair incarnation of the AntiChrist .
"""This, according to the suit, is an area "where vehicles travel at a high rate of speed and [is] devoid of pedestrian sidewalks"."""
Spare me your science fiction sir!
I need a coffee, or to put it in lawyer speak... 'coffee is an area of water where caffeine exists at a high rate of concentration and is devoid of pedestrian sidewalks!'
This post has been deleted by a moderator
"It is of course puzzling why Rosenberg did not use the evidence of her own eyes to decide Google Maps' instructions were best ignored."
Perhaps she isn't the sharpest knife in the block.
"Almost as puzzling as why she has set the lower bar for suing the world's biggest ad broker at a mere $100,000."
Well there you go, she isn't exactly as bright as burning magnesium now is she.
because the lawyers know she has a very weak case and anything more might cause Google to fight back. On the other hand, going for slightly more than $100k will mean she'll probably get an out of court settlement, pay off her medical bills (that will probably be covered by insurance anyway) and still have a few $k left over for some new Bulgarian airbags that she's always wanted but could never afford.
"It seems that when it comes to Satnav and other navigation aids the answer is yes."
Satnavs always amuse me especially for postcodes.
Being out in the sticks a bit, My local scout site has the same postcode as bunch of buildings across the other side of a rather torrential river. We regularly get people getting lost around there though, despite the large warning in the directions (Which are ignored cos they have a satnav!)
Of course, the best quote i ever heard was from my Dad, who was a long time TA member:
The thing about Satnavs in this country, is that there all based on the ORDNANCE survey data.
Of course, lots have been updated since the time when it was mostly a military mapping service, but you can bet that out in the deep countryside, there are bits that havent been updated since the 1940's and have routes on them that are only passable in a tank.
Ye Olde Register.
"A Devon woman is suing Ordnance Survey after accusing its mapping service of encouraging her to walk through the Great Grimpen Mire. She is asking for two thousand guineas for the mental and emotional effects of having to be dragged out of the bog by a farmer with a team of oxen."
... there should be a Darwin's Law.
If you do anything which is so stupid that you SHOULD have been killed, we will remove you from the gene pool ourselves. Firing squad at dawn.
To be a little more serious, why do people not just use a generalised disclaimer: "Stupid people may not enter/use our product etc.." If she is so stupid that she cannot figure out that it is dangerous to walk on what seems to be similar to a motorway, she deserves everything she gets! It's worse than the guy who got his car stuck on that dirt track following his satnav. Unbeleivable!
One would think she could and indeed should have noticed both the lack of a sidewalk and the speed of the cars. Given that she has a map in front of her, she could choose an alternate route if she was unhappy with the suitability of the road.
Regardless, I would hold the driver responsible for hitting a pedestrian. Last time I checked (admittedly, it has been a while), hitting pedestrians wasn't allowed, even if said pedestrian is intently following the directions on their phone...
There are places that pedestrians are not allowed. And if this was one, she could be liable for any damages to the car. From wikipedia for jaywalking:
"Following the Uniform Vehicle Code, state codes often do not prohibit a pedestrian to cross a roadway between intersections if at least one of the two adjacent intersections is not controlled by a signal, but stipulate that a pedestrian not at a crosswalk must yield the right of way to approaching drivers."
Was this one not cleansed from the gene pool?
Gone are the days when basic road safety ruled the decisions of the pedestrian, long forgotten are the warnings of the man walking ahead with the red flag. Since the introduction of shat-nav and Google maps do pedestrians now think they're invincible?
Personally I think the driver should be sued by the rest of us for not reversing and finishing what he/she started......!!!
Epic driving fail!!!!
"It is of course puzzling why Rosenberg did not use the evidence of her own eyes to decide Google Maps' instructions were best ignored.
Almost as puzzling as why she has set the lower bar for suing the world's biggest ad broker at a mere $100,000."
Her lawyer probably figures that given that she ignored the law and (presumably) at least one "no pedestrians" sign, she has a better chance of winning a claim centred on direct costs than punitive damages.
Maybe she's stupid or maybe she's quite clever.
1. Find an instance where there isn't a safety disclaimer.
2. Do something unsafe because you weren't told not to.
3. Claim a not unreasonable amount that might be settled out of court.
Of course her injuries might have been quite nasty and being hit by a car moving at high speed would seem to me to be likely to cost / worth more than $100K..
But maybe this is an easy (and painful) way to get a couple of years of salary and time to spend at home.
Saying its just all Americans kind of puts you in the same boat as people walking blindly according to Google's instructions, if you truly believe what you say, that is. And, if you don't TRULY believe its all Americans, which it isn't, then why would you say that?
I'm losing respect for Reg readers now. I thought this was a sensible group? I guess many just have "business sense".
these kinds of stories always come from the shallow end of the pond.
burned by coffee, sued maccy dees - a yank.
got in the back of a winabago to make a cuppa - cos it had cruise control - nutha yank.
got in a wreck cos too lazy to look over shoulder before pulling out - that would be a yank then.
the overwhelming majoriy of darwins - you guessed it
plus electing BUSH
you may not all be hard of thinking, but a demographically significant number are. And your legal system is bizzarrely skewed in their favour.
Just once i'd like to hear a verdict "to stupid to deserve the protection of the law, oh and PS you are off the electoral role forever"
and even that <ahem> victory is dubious. (hehehe george dubious bush!)
but isnt the justification for all them loonies in the boonies armed to the teeth, their second ammendment right to bear arms based on the idea that the people stay tooled up so if the government gets up to any hanky panky their tenure can be terminated, with extreme predjudice?
So where was the NRA when ther very purpose thet exist for came into being?
"Saying its just all Americans kind of puts you in the same boat as people walking blindly according to Google's instructions, if you truly believe what you say, that is. And, if you don't TRULY believe its all Americans, which it isn't, then why would you say that?"
Here here. Wasn't there an article here a couple years ago about a couple who followed their satnav somewhere up in the North (possibly Scotland) up a jeep trail and were stranded for a couple days? And if I recall correctly, the locals said it happened all the time.
Besides, can a country that unleashed Simon Cowell and Pop/American Idol on the world *really* be high and mighty when it comes to idiots?
I fail to see the difference between her walking down this road or any number of other roads that she presumably crossed prior to getting hit. When crossing those other roads did she just blindly walk straight across them because that's what google told her to do or did she ensure it was safe to cross first. If it was the former then maybe she just shouldn't be allowed out unsupervised. If it was the latter then she's lost the google told me to do it / I was only following orders argument.
Here in Deepest South Florida, if someone actually tried to _walk_ down one of the 'high-speed' corridors such as SR 80, a.k.a Southern Blvd, a.k.a US 98, and got what they deserved, actually survived, and then tried to sue, the judges would have a good laugh before first tossing the case out of court and then slapping the idiot with a fine for wasting court time.
Personally, I have this vision of someone trying to cross Southern, up near Palm Beach International. At about 08:00 on a Monday morning. There wouldn't be a lawsuit 'cause, well, the Fire-Rescue EMTs would have a hard time collecting all the body parts. The speed limit on Southern near the airport is 50 MPH (80 KPH, that is) and no-one pays the least attention to it unless there's a cop nearby. And even then they usually just cut speed down to about 60-65 MPH. Crossing that road at anywhere other than the traffic signals is a Really Good Way to find out if your bones are stronger than steel, especially given the very large number of South Florida Crackers driving Very Large Pickup Trucks (yes, with gun racks in the back) using one hand on the wheel and the other on a can of Budweiser. I expect that the only diff in Utah would be the beverage of choice, Mormons usually don't drink that much beer.
ARG! And I repeat; ARG!
Not all maps are 100% accurate 100% of the time, be the AA, Michelin, OS or anyone else's. Part of the skill in reading a map is being able to stop where it is off kilter and trusting your eyes of the map (and also knowing when to trust the map).
A *reasonable person* would follow this "incorrect" Google map, get to the "highway" (is that like a motorway, only hard shoulder where it is *ILLEGAL* to walk?) and think "Oh my, this map has sent me the wrong way. I shall confer with the map and find an alternate route."
"I will walk this way regardless of signage and local laws for the MAP is TRUTH, given unto me by the great god GOOGLE! All hail the chocolate factory. Car! Ow! The pain! The PAIN! Who can I sue....?"
Google Maps, for some awkward reason, has all the info on Mexico City (even the "one way" street flows) but doesn't give directions from X to Y. BlackBerry Maps does, but while I was monkeying around with it, I asked for it to give me directions from the northernmost point of the city to my apartment. Everything was well... until I noticed that the route I was given included a 5 km. stretch where I would be basically going on a traffic-packed one-way avenue... the wrong way.
There are other things wrong with the BB Maps info (like showing the M-57D as M-45D) but the "wrong way" route takes the cake.
Darwin (who by some standards is classified as a genius) stated the Theory of Evolution, the strongest, fastest, smartest survive.
Well thanx to modern medicine and lawyers the human race has proved this to be completely false.
As Murphy's Law states in regard to programming.
Programmers are continously creating better more IDIOT proof software.
The Universe is continously creating bigger and better IDIOTs.
The Universe will always win.
"....by some standards is classified as a genius...."
I think you need to modify that succinct version of the Theory of Evolution, changing "survive" to "survive to breed".
Otherwise, by his own standards, he isn't. Put it this way, he isn't doing much surviving these days.
The survival jacket. Obviously.
At least we get some novelty in the bug ticket stream.
For modern medicine and lawyers' parts, perhaps they'll get diligence in there when they start offering lightning guns (in addition to tennis-ball feet) on walkers...put a good working finish on the gibs, I mean.
I thought I might as well take advantage of one of Google's other services and have a looksee with streetview. True enough, there's no sidewalk, but there's a strip of dirt/grass on both sides. I can't comment on the legality, but it doesn't seem infeasible to walk along that to me. So on the one hand, I don't think this woman was crazy to do so, but on the other, I don't think it was necessarily incorrect for Google to have that in there database as a walkable street. There is clearly a better route, which is only slightly longer, but does anybody really expect computer-generated directions to use the *best* route?
To be fair, there's a whole lot of cases of drivers being this kind of stupid, all round the world. Just happens that this is the first for a pedestrian, and that it's an American woman.
And yes, I do suspect it might have something to do with lack of experience walking anywhere. Which might not be entirely her fault either - having worked for a bit in Detroit, it's often hard to get just from one parking lot to the next without driving. Sidewalks are a bit of a rarity anywhere except town centres.
I live in a housing estate which has a variety of cul-de-sacs and suchlike that mean that whilst it's a short walk around the block to my back gate, it's a 1.5 mile round trip driving! Google maps, needless to day, recommends the latter route.
I think that basically most of the mapping softwares don't have any details on footpaths, only roads, and the pedestrian option merely adjusts the time taken to traverse the route!
Google Maps always tells me to drive the wrong way down one-ways here in Saskatchewan.
I will sue! I will ignore the fact there are cars driving straight at me. Because Google Maps tells me to drive this way, which means everyone else is wrong. Right?
Oh wait... I'm in Canada. I can't sue anything. My only hope is America annexs Canada and then I can sue anything and everything.
This is total twaddle. As if anyone in their right mind would blunder along a busy road with no refuges for pedestrians on the say-so of a map. Has this woman been assessed for any psychiatric problems? Here in the UK, the M25 motorway would be a great place for her to start a walk-about. At least it would eliminate her from the gene pool.
As their case states, google took reasonable measures to provide a safe route. That means in legal speak that they're not liable for punitive damages. Maybe they figure that by not going "over the top" they're more likely to get something. It's an uncommon strategy for a reason, though.
In the land of lawyers, aka the U.S.. no reasoning skills are required let alone good judgment. You can pour hot coffee on your crotch and become an instant millionaire because the coffee was at 190 F instead of 175 F. You can push on the accelerator of your car and crash it and claim you were a victim of unintended acceleration and become a millionaire. You can file lawsuits for the most insane situations imaginable, like Google Maps. Only in the U.S. is justice truly blind... to personal responsibility.
...not "might makes right", for any measure of "might".
It just so happens, some of those changes might occur as the less notably capable members of a species would be naturally removed from the species, by whatever actual turn of events.
It could easily be said to be convenient, in that, but the point of the theory is certainly not anything like, "Only the strongest/smartest/sexiest/fattest survive"
Zero points for oversimplifaction, friend.
A Google, Googly brain human. 1. A human that stopped using their normal brain and instead has opted to be led by Google in all things from sunrise to sunset, and who knows, maybe in dream land. 2. A brain dead human 3. Google Zombie 4. Someone that sees an opportunity to make some money by suing anything and everything by not taking responsibilities for their own stupid choices. (the hammer didn't come with instructions but I still used it anyways, wasn't supposed to hit the nail? It hit my thumb and it hurts. Someone got to pay for my pain!)
Oh well I had my fun, I can't think of anything else, long day, too tired. : -)
( My opinion is my opinion and no Major or Minor Deity was hurt in the process of me thinking or acting upon that said opinion.)
As a brit, I was shocked at how few roads actually have pavements (sidewalks?) outside of city centres in Leftpondia. Hell, I was also shocked about how many properties along these roads without pavements had walls and fences that stretched right to the road.
Walking half a mile in a suburban area to get to a local shop got you odd looks, like you were proposing to set out to walk to the moon in only a thong. It seems to be quite a people-hostile place in suburban America.
You've obviously never been to Bracknell or Hemel Hempstead. New towns in the UK appear to be designed around one thing: fuck wits in their cars. At least the US has an excuse: it's HUGE; the UK is a pissy little piece of rock and STILL the government is going to build yet more pointless roads for people to speed on.
"As a brit, I was shocked at how few roads actually have pavements (sidewalks?) outside of city centres in Leftpondia."
Having lived in Cornwall (Bude/Stratton/Poughill) & Yorkshire (Harrogate/Knaresborough & environs) & the wilds of Scotland (Applecross), methinks your knickers are showing.
"Hell, I was also shocked about how many properties along these roads without pavements had walls and fences that stretched right to the road."
Suggestion: Get out more. Inspect the hedgerows. Learn a little about the environment you are living in (and trying to comment on). Have a pint along the way. It'll do you a world of good.
"Walking half a mile in a suburban area to get to a local shop got you odd looks, like you were proposing to set out to walk to the moon in only a thong."
Really? Where I live (Sonoma, CA), it's quite encouraged socially ...
"It seems to be quite a people-hostile place in suburban America."
That's a whole 'nuther kettle of fish ... People (as a species) didn't evolve to live on top of each other like hamsters ... must dash, the farrier is here.
I went to the website that showed the road... and where Darwins Dimwit was hit, and there is plenty of verge on each side of the road, and there is enough verge on the actual side she walked on the road, to actually keep OFF the road it's self.
I bet this woman rides bikes without seats, and then complains about banging her bush too.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021