Family sues Google alleging the maps app led man to driving off a bridge



A family is suing Google after a man died from driving off of a damaged bridge while using the company’s maps app. The lawsuit alleges that Google Maps did not inform the driver that the bridge was damaged and that other users alerted the service of the damage weeks before the accident.

» Subscribe to NBC News: http://nbcnews.to/SubscribeToNBC
» Watch more NBC video: http://bit.ly/MoreNBCNews

NBC News Digital is a collection of innovative and powerful news brands that deliver compelling, diverse and engaging news stories. NBC News Digital features NBCNews.com, MSNBC.com, TODAY.com, Nightly News, Meet the Press, Dateline, and the existing apps and digital extensions of these respective properties. We deliver the best in breaking news, live video coverage, original journalism and segments from your favorite NBC News Shows.

Connect with NBC News Online!
NBC News App: https://smart.link/5d0cd9df61b80
Breaking News Alerts: https://link.nbcnews.com/join/5cj/breaking-news-signup?cid=sm_npd_nn_yt_bn-clip_190621
Visit NBCNews.Com: http://nbcnews.to/ReadNBC
Find NBC News on Facebook: http://nbcnews.to/LikeNBC
Follow NBC News on Twitter: http://nbcnews.to/FollowNBC
Get more of NBC News delivered to your inbox: nbcnews.com/newsletters

#Google #Lawsuit #Bridge

source

49 thoughts on “Family sues Google alleging the maps app led man to driving off a bridge”

  1. Both the company, land owner and anyone involved in the property safety standards is responsible it seems. Unfortunate for his wife, family. The bridge should have been a restricted area, blocked with barriers, until it was fixed, safe passage. The company liability seems valid in regards to safety alerts and fine print notifications in regards to potential hazards, unclear if the courts would decide in their favor but sure seems not for drivers to assume safe travel over a bridge especially as unsecured bridges can be dangerous, it seems if the google direction had said, bridge passage be sure the bridge is secure, that could’ve cover liability. ? Still the loss, no amount of money will replace her husband. Tragic.

    Reply
  2. Very high chance judge will dismiss the case if it ever gets into court case, the family must have been confused gps is just an assistive tool to help drivers get around, if the driver was using other GPS it would most likely be the same thing, even not using GPS the driver will have to just watch out with his own senses. Please don't tell me if the driver sees construction happening on the road the person would ram the car straight into construction vehicles ? Eyes on the road people, not on your phone!!

    Reply
  3. I'm not surprised. I've twice been just seconds away from accidents listening to Google – one night it had me turning left into a concrete meridian on a busy and broad street. It has no comprehension of closed streets or the difference between an un-lit winding road on the side of a mountain or a multi-lane highway. GOOGLE DOES NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW WHERE YOU ARE!

    Reply
  4. I don't understand why the USA can't emulate other developed countries by placing a barrier gate arm in such roads.
    In places like Germany, it doesn't matter if it is a private road, you are required by law to install at least a single pole barrier gate arm making it physically impossible for cars to get through except when raised. A clear STOP symbol is also required at the (horizontal) center of the pole.
    But again you would have to be a developed country to think this far ahead.

    Reply
  5. I estimate about $200. Four rubbermaid garbage cans filled with rocks and concrete. Had the land owners put two on each side about a 50-100 feet from the edge this would not have happened. So YES, they do need to be included in the suit.

    There is zero excuse for Google either. They received numerous warnings.

    Reply
  6. Not Google's fault. It's a private road. And what was dude doing glued to his phone while driving. You can't take this man's responsibility of driving away from him. It's unfortunate, but accidents do happen.

    Reply
  7. I wonder if Google has a warning label like everything else. Warning – "use at your own risk, info might be partially or entirely wrong, and you might end up dead…" most of us don't read the fine print anyways so they could just tuck it someplace in terms of service 😒

    Reply
  8. Oh, of course google & these map searches, will ALL have their "disclaimers," but if they were warned, & repeatedly, then they should be liable, as should the City/State – whatever – Agencies that should have had copious warnings leading & up to, in fact, they should have blocked the Bridge from any Access, PERIOD!

    Reply
  9. It’s tragic, but he should’ve look before crossing. A person with families and friends to look after would always be cautious, there is no one to blame but your own stupidity. I tell my nieces and nephews to look all direction before crossing any streets etc… but hey, only in America that you could blame others for negligence, no where else in the world you can make money like this.

    Reply
  10. I feel sorry for the family, but I don't see where Google can get pinned down in the courts for this. The private company and the county or state is at fault . So also if that county or state is not asking for a bridge inspector then they allow incense like this to happen. But if you're looking for a moral blame, what about the residence of the community? They couldn't go to home Depot or any other type of hardware store and get two or four parking lot bumpers and fashion it to the road. Also signs to say this road is collapsed 30 yd from the road ending? That's a tragedy in itself. Where is the humanity in the community for that? And yes, Google might give me a moral check, but remember it's a private road. In this situation has been like this for 9 years. I'm sorry one of the two parties should have stepped up to the plate, the private company and the state. My condolences to the family, that's just sucks.

    Reply
  11. 2:44 They (#Google) promote their products to the detriment of all others. They always protect their assets by the tiny disclaimer where-ever they have a product you expect to be able to trust, still, in this instance? Google was warned at least twice to fix this exact location, if they are not going to protect their brand by following up on claims that could cause injury or death, they should be held responsible for their failure. The people responsible for the road/bridge are equally culpable, as they also had a responsibility to maintain signage and a permanent barrier, no matter how many times it got vandalised.

    Reply

Leave a Comment