I would agree, however if this statement from the article can be proven:

The lawsuit adds that Google had previously been notified about the collapse and several attempts had been made for the route information to be updated.

Then there might be an argument that Google was negligent in not updating it's maps. I'd agree that it's a weak argument and that the Terms of Service likely contains a clause like "you are responsible to watch out for road conditions". But, if the bridge has been out for a decade and multiple attempts to update Google about the collapsed bridge had been made, that may rise to the level of negligence.

Keep in mind it's not an all or nothing thing, they'll assign percentages of fault. It's also important that they name name basically anybody involved because the others will try to blame Google to shift fault off of themselves.

Effectively you want to name everybody possible so that they all fight it out.

I am with you 100%. Expecting Google to be responsible for road maintenance is a frivolous. Google will sue them for legal costs.

All signs and barriers kept getting moved/stolen.

Google just claims over and over that it’s too big and has too much data

"ok, google. how many pieces should you be sliced into in order to rectify this?"

This kind of thing is why I hate Google Maps. There is no way to ensure that edits are carried out based on your local knowledge, whereas with OpenStreetMap you can just go make the changes that need to be made. It's been very satisfying for me to go contribute to OpenStreetMap when I see that paths are added or changed, so that the map reflects reality. Meanwhile Google Maps won't even move an entire park that is in the wrong place.

Maps have been around for thousands of years and have always been unreliable. You'd think the legal principles involved would be well explored by now.

Thank you for the additional source. So, there wasn't any signage, barriers, or lighting, AND it was dark and raining AND Google had multiple requests and 10 years to fix it AND other services have it properly marked. Maybe people should slow their roll and stop dismissing the case out of hand?

This would be a non-story if they had just sued the city for negligence. But everything is big tech's fault nowadays.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/jmYi6euT36iMbMqq7

Think this is the bridge in question which appears fine on Google Street view.

Don't get tricked by the title. The lawsuit isn't only going after Google, they are just one party in the chain of negligence that led to this death.

they are also in the lawsuit, the article just chose to misleadingly play the less juicy bits down

I would usually agree but there was no barriers I am not sure about signage. While I think the driver should always be aware of where they are driving they honestly set him up for failure. On top of that Google had a decade to fix the route and didn't.

If there was signage, that at a minimum would make it his fault.

Because they’re not blindly trusting Google maps, which is why Google is only one of those in the lawsuit and not the most culpable.

I live in the PNW and needed to go somewhere past a large mountain in winter. I.E. what roads were plowed and which weren't mattered. I used google maps, and downloaded the route, cause no cell signal on the mountain.

I started off and it was fine. Used the appropriate highways and such. There is a transition between major highways I'd never used before that I wanted help with, but that was the only bit I was unfamiliar with.

Google ended up trying to get me to take a forest service road that starts off looking good. At this point I know not to listen to it, cause I did know this area and knew that that road, regardless of what it looked like at the entrance, was not safe.

I got out and walked about 100 feet and around a corner, and suddenly it's 4 feet of snow. It all looked safe at the start. Remember, there is no cell signal and I could easily see getting stuck there and not being able to get help. It looked safe and google was telling me to do it. It feels easy to say, "hurr durr, the driver was stupid." but that just sounds to me like "hurr durr, that woman with third degree burns should have known McDonalds coffee was as hot as plasma."

Have you read the article ?

The bridge was destroyed since a decade but still on Google maps. There were no markings, no road blocks, nothing. It was 11pm in a pitch black country side road, the car was a jeep or something like that, aka not the best breaking action on the planet.

You know you are supposed to be able to stop on half the distance you can see ? But do you ?

So now pictures yourself driving in pitch black environment on a road so far up your mom’s ass there’s literally zero chance of seeing another car. It’s 11pm, you’re tired, eager to go home and your gps show you a straight line. On your lights beam you only see road, trees and darkness, you’re probably driving 50kph or more as you don’t feel the bumps on your huge murican style car.

Suddenly the road is darker and you see a huge gap (or maybe you missed it by a few seconds as you were changing radio station or checking your speedometer for half a second).

Add 1 or 2 seconds for your brain to react and you need at least 15 meters to stop, more if you’re driving faster.

Then also account that probably 85% of drivers are not pilots and they never brakes hard enough during an emergency (when they say to crush the brakes pedal with all your strength they mean it).

Result ? You’re probably dead, as well as most everyday drivers in the exact same situation, so here take your free Darwin Award 🥇 🤷🏻‍♂️

Feel free to correct me, but I’m reading “Darwin applies here” as “the guy was too dumb to live longer”, which I think would be pretty insensitive. Regardless, I don’t think it’s fair at all to invoke Darwin here.

This article paints a better picture of the driver’s perspective. It was late at night and rainy, so vision was obscured and allegedly “pitch black”. Furthermore I’d argue the average driver doesn’t have a reason to believe that Google Maps would direct them over a collapsed bridge, much less one that’d collapsed 10 years ago, so it’d be easier to say “Can’t see a damn thing, I’ll trust Maps”.

I obviously don’t know the guy at all, and the details above were taken from the lawsuit afaik so they can make any claim they want, but with so little other information I think it’s fair to paint this more as a tragedy than as “natural selection”, even if you don’t want to hold Google or any of the bridge property managers responsible.

Plus, the guy had a wife and 2 kids, and was driving home late from cleaning up from his daughter’s birthday party; I think he deserves a bit more respect than that.

I fully agree. I also hate Google and will look for any reason to hate on them more, however in this context they aren’t at fault. You’re the one driving and operating the machine. The app is literally “guidance”. It didn’t order him to drive over the bridge 🤣