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!'
"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.
"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.
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.
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...
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!!!!
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."
"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".
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019