Walk this way...

[Gob]

When Google Maps' walking directions instructed Lauren Rosenberg to walk along a very busy highway with no pedestrian walkway, she followed the directions exactly.

Unfortunately, she was hit by a car in the process. Now she's suing Google for damages, Search Engine Land reports.

The walking directions from 96 Daly Ave to 1710 Prospector Ave in Park City, Utah told Rosenberg to walk just over one half of a mile along Deer Valley Drive, also known as Highway 224.



The highway did not have sidewalks or any other pedestrian-friendly amenities, and Rosenberg was struck by a car driven by a man named Patrick Harwood.

Rosenberg filed suit against both Harwood and Google, claiming both carried responsibility in her injury.

Her lawyers claim that Google is liable because it did not warn her that the route would not offer a safe place for a pedestrian to walk. Note that the Google Maps (Google Maps) website actually does do that, as pictured here.

However, Rosenberg says she used Google Maps on her BlackBerry, which did not show that warning, so she’s suing for more than $100,000.

She should have probably realised upon arrival that it was an unsafe place to walk, though — but isn’t that how these lawsuits always go?

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digi ... -wtrr.html

Next up: "Man sues McDonalds for not warning him the carton his burger came in was not edible.."

[Miles]

We have degenerated into a society that accepts no personal responsibility. Check the yellow pages and see just how many pages of attorney listings there are. I would almost bet the woman in question has a lawyer on speed dial on the blackberry.

[Sue U]

Are you trying to bait me?

Just because she has brought suit, why do you think she is "accept[ing] no personal responsibility"? Is the fact she was hit by a car entirely her fault? Don't you think that more than one factor may contribute to the occurrence of an accident? Do you think there is no process by which she might be apportioned some share of responsibility? Did you really expect her to name herself as a defendant in the lawsuit as well?

The question in this case, as in every negligence case, is whether any of the parties failed to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances and if so, their share of culpability for the resulting injuries. Surely, you can't tell from this brief item whether the driver of the car exercised reasonable care for pedestrians on the roadway. Similarly, did the woman who was hit fail to exercise reasonable care for her own safety? Perhaps, but don't you think that may in some part depend on what she was lead to believe by Google? The fact that it provided a disclaimer on its standard application but not on its version for BlackBerry is certainly not helpful to Google.

The novelty of this case is actually in whether Google holds itself out to be a reliable source of map information and might have any duty with respect to the route information it provides. It may be that Google has no duty to supply accurate information, even though it is evident that it is attempting to induce people to rely on it as a trustworthy source. But as far as I know this is an untested area -- largely because the way the world works has changed with the advances in technology available. Why do you find it somehow outrageous that law might actually have some role in defining responsibilities in a changing world? Seems to me that's pretty much why it exists.

[Grim Reaper]

For some fun, go to Google Maps and get directions that take you across the ocean. You'll get stuff like this:

13. Kayak across the Pacific Ocean    2,756 mi

Entering Hawaii

[Miles]

No Sue, I am not trying to 'bait' anyone. It is my considered opinion that way too many people do not exercise common sense and when they put themselves in danger and are injured they then expect others to provide for them. If she arrived at the location and was confronted with a busy highway with no designatged side walk so that she was required to walk in close proximity to traffic she certainly had choices. Her choice put her at risk.

I don't know all the particulars and quite frankly I could care less. My point is that far too many people act without thinking and when there are consequences they don't accept personal responsibility.

[Sue U]

Miles, my concern is your (and others') apparent knee-jerk reaction that anyone who files a lawsuit -- and especially one with out-of-the-ordinary facts -- is somehow "not accepting personal responsibility," or "acting without thinking" of the consequences, or has a "lawyer on speed-dial." You're now backpedaling from the specifics of this case and claiming that in general "way too many people do not exercise common sense and when they ... are injured they then expect others to provide for them" -- and they do so presumably through filing a lawsuit. WTF? How is finding yourself the victim of an accident somehow expecting others to provide for you? Should you not be afforded an ambulance from the accident scene or provided medical care for your inuries unless you can demonstrate you were using "common sense" and had no fault whatsoever?

Where do you get this idea that suing for damages means not accepting personal responsibility? Why shouldn't the driver who hit her accept his personal responsibility for failing to use due care for pedestrians lawfully on the roadway? Why shouldn't Google accept its "personal responsibility" for sending her out on a hazardous route while touting its reliability and expertise in mapping services? What is wrong with holding everyone acountable for their own shares of responsibility? Why do you want to blame it all on the victim? Because you think you would "never be so stupid"? Believe me, no one thinks they're being stupid at the time; they think they're doing what they are supposed to, or have to.

[Miles]

My contention is not that all law suits are frivolous, although many are. Do I think the driver has a responibility, certainly if he is at fault. Should she be intitled to an ambulance, of course if she needed it. Do I think google has a responsibility, not at all. If there had been a bridge involved in the directions and when she got to that point and the bridge was not there would it be googles fault if she just walked over the edge! Yeah, I know a silly analogy but you get my point.

You will have to excuse me if I consider some lawyers less than ethical. I imagine you have met or at least heard of some of these creatures that give your chosen profession a black eye. Unfortunately I have had personal contact with one such individual and it cost me dearly. I do understand that a few does not mean all, however we usually don't hear about the good ones. If what I express here offends you I apologise it was not offered as a personal attack upon anyone.

[Big RR]

Miles--so you are saying that google has no responsibility for ascertaining that the directions it gives are safe, or even effective? Why?

[loCAtek]

Well, you do have more than one choice when google gives you a map.

You may choose routes by: Shortest, Scenic or Public transportation, etc.

As a matter of fact, I googled those directions, and there is an alternative route she could have chosen.

Walking directions to 1710 Prospector Ave, Park City, UT 84060
1.9 mi – about 33 mins
Suggested routes
Main St and Deer Valley Dr
1.9 mi 33 mins
Deer Valley Dr
2.0 mi 33 mins
Park Ave
2.0 mi 34 mins

96 Daly Ave
Park City, UT 84060

1. Head north on Daly Ave/Empire Canyon toward Hillside Ave
0.1 mi
2. Slight left at Park Ave
1.0 mi
3. Turn right toward Sullivan Rd
98 ft
4. Turn left at Sullivan Rd
171 ft
5. Turn left to stay on Sullivan Rd
0.1 mi
6. Turn right to stay on Sullivan Rd
0.1 mi
7. Turn right at Deer Valley Dr
279 ft
8. Turn left at Bonanza Dr
0.4 mi
9. Turn right at Prospector Ave
Destination will be on the left

358 ft

1710 Prospector Ave
Park City, UT 84060

At reaching the highway she could have simply taken out her Blackberry and requested a different route.

[dales]

The Death Of Common Sense has resulted in the rise of sue-happy litigants at the expense of a cohesive society.

[Gob]

My point in this, is my jaw dropping incredulity that anyone could even think that suggested directions via a blackberry is some form of contract.

It's advice you moronic cow, you choose to accept it, then it's your responsibility to keep yourself safe.

I do not think that Mile's "bridge" analogy is in any way outre here.

[Grim Reaper]

Miles--so you are saying that google has no responsibility for ascertaining that the directions it gives are safe, or even effective? Why?

They can't really provide a 100% guarantee of safety since they have no way of updating all of their maps in real time. What happens if they say a route is safe at the time that they map it, but then the city later rips up the sidewalk for construction purposes?

[loCAtek]

I remember when GPS in your car first came out in the 90's, my Ex and I had rented such an equipped auto to drive through Arkansas. 'The Land of Opportunity' had finally decided to build asphalt freeways by then... ( I kid!) Well, they were building a new cloverleaf and as we drove across it, the little arrow on the GPS screen (meaning us) drifted off the mapped road and floated over the surrounding Lowlands.

We were off-roading and didn't even know it!

[loCAtek]

Hmmm, most do think she's a twat, but they twit the wrong twat;

Santa Monica woman takes the heat in Google case

An L.A. County woman sues the search engine giant over directions that allegedly led to her being struck by a car. But another woman, also named Lauren Rosenberg, bears the brunt of public abuse.

By Carla Hall, Los Angeles Times



Last week, a Los Angeles County woman named Lauren Rosenberg sued Google in federal court for damages, alleging it was responsible for her being hit by a car. Rosenberg — who also sued the driver who hit her — said the search engine giant was "careless, reckless, and negligent" in supplying her with walking directions in Park City, Utah, last year that led her onto a rural state highway with no sidewalks.

And this week, Lauren Rosenberg of Santa Monica got bombarded with the public reaction. Strangers left tart phone messages and withering e-mails lambasting her for suing Google.

The problem is — they found the wrong Lauren Rosenberg. This Lauren Rosenberg owns a public relations company, did not sue Google over bad directions, and says she's confident she wouldn't have followed those directions anyway. ("Just because Google says to walk on a highway, you don't walk on a highway.")

What she's struggling to cope with is the fallout mistakenly directed her way. "The first one I received was an e-mail from a friend saying, 'Gee, I thought you were smarter than that,' " Rosenberg said.

» Don't miss a thing. Get breaking news alerts delivered to your inbox.

That's when Rosenberg discovered that someone who shared her name had sued Google. "I replied, 'I swear I'm smarter than that.' Smiley face."

At least her friends are funny — or worried. ("Not you, I hope?" e-mailed one friend with a link to a story on the plaintiff Rosenberg.)

Strangers, however, have been scathing.

"They all tell me I'm stupid and how dare I sue Google, take some responsibility for your own actions," Rosenberg said. "At first I thought it was funny. I just cracked up. Ha, ha, ha. Then today when I got more, I thought this could be a problem."

She has posted something on her blog headlined "A CASE OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY" that alerts the public that she is not the same Lauren Rosenberg. "Can you say 'damage control'?" she concludes.

The attorney representing the "other" Rosenberg — the one who really is suing Google — did not return a phone message.

carla.hall@latimes.com

Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times

[Aard Vark]

I remember a patrol of scouts using a gps instead of the map they were ment to use walked of a cliff. They asked for direct rout from point A to point B and just blindly followed the arrow.
Gladly no one was hurt but they were given a right reving by their leader and didn't get the badges they were working on.

Googal can't be held responsible for the woman not having the brain power to work out walking down a highway isn't safe. Just like the scouts she didn't think.

The driver that hit her should be compensated for the inconveniance of having her hit his car.
No foot path normaly means you can't walk there.

I hope this get tossed out before she sues the designer of the NO PED signs for not making it clear or the road cleaners because the litter in the gutter distracted her at the moment of inpact

[Grim Reaper]

However, Rosenberg says she used Google Maps on her BlackBerry, which did not show that warning, so she’s suing for more than $100,000.

And this bit? The first time you use the service with a cell phone, it warns you then as part of the EULA. So she had to click through the warning to be able to use Google Maps on her Blackberry.

[Beer Sponge]

I think a laugh is in order here!

[Big RR]

No one, certinly not me, is saying the woman should not have used common sense, or that she may be largely, or even entirely, responsible for what occurred. But the question is, shouldn't google also have to use the same common sense and not provide walking directions which require the user to walk in an area where they should not walk. Shouldn't google, which has access to all the road information, have some respoonsibility to inform those who avail themselves of their services have some responsibility to its customers? And if not, why not?

[Simpson5215]

Google Maps are free if she had paid for a subscription or service and got bad directions I could see maybe just maybe google being at some fault. The fact that she was using a FREE website should come into play as the old saying goes you get what you pay for

Also in my state it is illegal to walk on the freeway or highway they even have signs on every entrance ramp that says no pedestrians or non motorized vehicles allowed (the only exception being if you were to break down and even then it is suggested that you stay in your vehicle). I would think the fact that she was not using a motor vehicle on the highway at all would make her whole lawsuit laughable.

[Miles]

Miles--so you are saying that google has no responsibility for ascertaining that the directions it gives are safe, or even effective? Why?

I agree with what the others hear have stated. I have used google and mapquest in the past a did not find them to be accurate or in some cases clear and easy to follow. If I choose to use them I exercise due dilligence to maintain a safe trip.