Lauren Rosenberg is suing Google because the walking directions she got via her Blackberry and Google Maps put her onto a busy road where she got hit by a car. While I wish Ms. Rosenberg a speedy recovery, I hope this suit gets tossed out as having no merit.
Salt Lake Tribune: Woman Sues Google After Park City Accident
Update: This story was initially posted by Danny Sullivan of Search Engine Land, who has excellent maps and photos of the intersection and Google Maps screen shots.
When you use Google Maps for directions, you get the driving directions by default. But you can also click to see Public Transit, Walking, or Biking directions. When you view this on a computer, it has a Beta warning, "Walking directions are in beta. Use caution - This route may be missing sidewalks or pedestrian paths." But that warning is missing if you look them up on a Blackberry, according to the lawsuit.
If I use Google Maps to find a walking route from my home to my day job, it gives me three options. The shortest route is along a busy street. I know it has sidewalks, but I would also be crossing many busy intersections. A second route is slightly longer but along a street a little less busy. The third route they suggest gets onto even quieter streets. Google offers you photos of each intersection, so you can see whether there is a sidewalk, crosswalk, lights, etc. They don't have photos of the intersections within my neighborhood because it is too new.
Does the lack of a warning constitute negligence on the part of Google? A court will decide that, but it just doesn't pass the sniff test with me. As a walker, I've used guidebooks, street maps, GPS maps, and now online maps for decades. The only reliable thing about any of them is that you still need to use your own judgment and caution.
I've been misdirected more than once with driving instructions. Using a printed Thomas Brothers map I once drove up somebody's driveway into their sportscourt because on the map it was a public road. I've often seen streets in reality that don't exist on maps, and streets that exist on maps but dead end in wetlands in reality. And that is just in my own city!
You need to use common sense when any map leads you astray, and willing to abandon Plan A for Plan B. I used my iPhone maps app last weekend to explore a new route to get to a shopping center and back three miles away. I loved having the immediate access to a map, but I also drove the course first before walking it -- to ensure the streets would be safe and pleasant to walk on, and that the neighborhood wasn't too rough.
I would hate to see these services get driven out of existence by lawsuits.
A walker must always look to their own safety, even on a course that has been checked out for walkability. Conditions can change. You need to be sure you are visible to traffic and that you are constantly aware of it. Our soft little bodies are no match to speedier tons of steel.
14 Points to Planning a Good Walking Route
If this lawsuit is successful, expect a lot more dumb warning labels on maps, shoes, socks, walking poles, etc. Already, the AVA group of walking clubs does not allow online publishing of route maps for their organized walks and their self-guided walks. They want the walker to sign a liability waiver before they get the map and directions or begin to follow a marked course. If I am volunteering at an event and a walker asks what the liability waiver means, I tell them "Walking is really, really dangerous and you are vowing not to sue us if you are injured or killed." In actuality, I think living is dangerous, as it always results in death. Walking can help postpone the inevitable and give you better health along the way.
I think this lawsuit is hilarious – and so frivolous that the woman should have to pay Google’s court costs. Who said walking on a busy street guaranteed you’d be hit by a car? Obviously she didn’t think so, or she’d have turned back.
People like Lauren Rosenberg are a cancer to society. This lawsuit makes me sick and I hope she gets laughed out of court and laughed out of society. Pathetic.
I’m surprised she isn’t also suing the shoe companies because there aren’t warnings on the shoe boxes that if you wear shoes while walking in a busy street you might get hit by a car. I mean, really. Good grief.
As I read this story, I realized it would make my dog proud. In our town, the off-leash dog park is next to a busy highway. Dogs that remain a danger to themselves or others in that they may run across the busy highway (perhaps to smell another dog, a much stronger stimulus than google maps), are expected to be kept on a leash at all times. Perhaps this judge – rather than throw out the case or ask google for compensation – should simply require that Ms. Rosenberg be kept on a leash until she develops the mental reasoning necessary for her well-being.
I really don’t want to demonize the plaintiff, she is already injured. She has medical expenses and (perhaps) faces a reduced quality of life.
What can happen is that the lawyer advises going after the “deepest pockets,” which can be the city, county, state, nearby businesses, and in this case the map provider, in addition to the automobile insurance and assets of the driver involved in the accident.
Our walking club insurance was sued because a drunk driver struck a pedestrian who was following our route on the OPPOSITE side of the street, on the sidewalk. In that case, the city was also sued (I guess for not having crash barriers between the road and sidewalk???) The lawyer was using a shotgun method to try to get settlements from as many defendents as possible.
Anyway, I don’t want to leap to conclusions about the mindset of the plaintiff.
When walkers tell me they won’t sue my walking club if anything happens on a walk, I tell them that maybe THEY won’t, but what is to stop their heirs from suing if they are killed? You never know who will feel the need to sue, and what their motive is. While a signed waiver doesn’t prevent a suit, it can be used as a negotiation point in a settlement.
As for walking in her shoes, I fully expect that my final thoughts will be, “Uh oh, THAT was stupid of me!” I hope that nobody sues anybody because of my lapse of judgment that will cause my demise.
Seriously? If google maps told you to walk off a cliff would you do that? While a warning is a good idea due to our litigious society, a grown adult should know to go back the way she started the walk if the road was too dangerous to cross.
If the accident was the result of driver inattention, no map on earth will prevent it.
I agree with doglover. Is there no personal responsibility and common sense any more? Next thing you know the weather report will be sunny and clear, but a passing rain cloud gets Lauren all wet and she sues mother nature. This is clear evidence that the gene pool is getting more shallow every day.
Everything I ever needed to know about everything I learned in Kindergarten. I think I learned to look boff ways before crossing. Give me a break.
She is an idiot. Everybody wants to sue for their lack of common sense and stupidity.
Utterly ridiculous… We have federal court, family court, criminal court, traffic court. We now need one dedicated solely to cases like this, we’ll call it the “I’m–extremely-stupid-and-expect- to-get-paid-for-it court” God help us.
Unfortunately, this woman may well end up rich for life. It’s easier and less expensive for the “deep pockets” to settle out of court than it is to fight a frivolous lawsuit these days.
There was a case where the manufacturer of ladders was sued – and lost – because the user put the legs of the ladder in a pile of horse poop, then leaned the ladder against the barn. The sun warmed the poop, it turned into slime, the legs of the ladder slipped, the man fell. He sued because the ladder didn’t carry a warning. I guess he wanted one that said, “Don’t put the legs in horse poop on a sunny”. Sometimes I despair about the future of the human race.
Was this woman not taught as a child how to walk on a street. If there are no sidewalks – walk facing traffic so you can see what is coming and get out of the way if necessary. Unfortunately the whole world is getting to the point that we are not responsible for our own actions and it always someone elses fault. Grow up!
i know this woman has eyes and could see she was going on to a dangedrous road for walking this is a frivilous law suit,no one is responsible for the lack of anothers common sense
Having been severely hit by a car, I can understand her desire to help with the medical bills; however a person needs to take responsibility for their own actions. To me what that means is being responsible enough for your own actions when faced with dangerous situations so as to not allow yourself to be harmed in such a way that it will affect the rest of your life.
She is also suing the driver who hit her.
People have become sue-happy, if something causes them harm instead of chalking it up to a life lesson, they sue someone. Because of the sue-happy people we have so many “stupid laws” on the books it is almost funny. Sure once in a great while the lawsuit has merit, but it’s pretty rare. We don’t have sidewalks in our community, but I’m smart enough to know which streets are safe and which aren’t, and if a map shows a street that isn’t safe I use a different one, duh!
Obviously this woman can see and hear. She should have used the common sense God gave her.
What happened to personal responsibility? She chose to walk on the street. But based on the McDonald’s coffee suit and others anyone want to bet me that she wont prevail?
I cant believe that this would even get into the court system. Greedy lawyer trying to take on google. Hope that she gets slapped with googles court costs.
This country is litigation happy!! SAD
WOW!! I suppose the map told her while walking to not use any precautions….. next she’ll go hiking in the woods wearing bells and be eaten by a bear and have her family sue the bell company….. Ridiculous.
Utterly amazing. No matter how many warnings you just can’t save some people from their own stupidity. Some just sue others for a free ride. If she feels she shouldn’t have been on that street but was, maybe the driver who hit her should sue her for being where she shouldn’t of been. I mean she wants it both ways.
A few years ago, I was on a white water rafting trip in Zambia. The guide was prepping the group and asked if there were any Americans. I was the only one, I raised my hand. The guide said, I guess we better get some more insurance and a lawyer. It was funny but the sad state of affairs is that Americans are known for suing everyone for everything. Shakespeare said something like: Let’s kill all the lawyers first. I don’t know if that’s the answer but something is wrong with our society when we’re the laughing stock of the rest of the world. A few years ago there were two almost identical airline crashes. One was in Japan and the other in Boston. In both cases the pilot made an error and drove the plane into the water killing all on board. In the Japanese case, the president of JAL apologized to each and every family of the victims and offered them monetary settlements. All accepted. In the American case, the lawyers told the airline execs to not talk to any family members of victims under any circumstances. The lawyers representing the families told them the same thing. In the end, the American families and the Japanese families got almost identical settlements, except the American families had to give half of their settlement to the lawyers.
There is a disclaimer on the Google website: “These directions are for planning purposes only. You may find that construction projects, traffic, weather, or other events may cause conditions to differ from the map results, and you should plan your route accordingly. You must obey all signs or notices regarding your route.”
Obviously, she doesn’t know how to read! LOL!
Here is the original source for the story:
http://searchengineland.com/woman-follows-google-maps-walking-directions-gets-hit-sues-43212
Thanks for that link, Stu, they do a great job of fleshing out the story (which I read on Yahoo News) and following up.
The woman was walking AT NIGHT. She was struck while CROSSING the road. Frankly, at this point it doesn’t matter to me whether there was or was not a sidewalk on the other side. She did not use ordinary caution when crossing a road that had no pedestrian signal nor even a painted crosswalk.
While such intersections are ones with implied crosswalks (in my state), cars are not expecting pedestrians there, especially at night. I myself often am in just this situation and I give extra, extra, extra caution when crossing, waiting until there is no traffic that could POSSIBLY speed up and hit me.
Also — was she wearing a reflective vest, carrying a flashlight, or at least light colored clothing? Those are things I do when walking at night, even in areas with signals for crosswalks and streetlamps.
I could see that she might THINK that somehow she could run across the road to a sidewalk in time to beat the car, but didn’t make it and/or the shoulder she ran to was so narrow that the startled driver swerved into her anyway. But at this point, if I were on the jury, I wouldn’t give her a dime from Google and only the injury limits that the automobile insurance covered.
Did the directions tell her to step out in front of a car? Did they say Do not pay attention to the regular rules of being a pedistrian? Does she not know how to walk alongside a roadside? Has she been raised in darkness all her life?
Plu-eeeze! Stop the insanity!~ Toss this suit to the lions. I really cannot belive a lawyer would take this case on. Next thing you know Google maps will have to have you sign a disclaimer that you are not stupid and that you know how to cross the street without the help of an assistant or police officer.
Sorry. This stuff makes me crazy!
Obviously, the path is theoretical and not generated by an actual human.