Walk this way...

[loCAtek]

. 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?

That is just an assumption and not a fact. Normally yes, google maps does not suggest walking along marked Highways. However the search engine, just a computer program read 'Deer Valley Drive' which usually applies to a walkable roadway. The program took the title literally because it not have access to all the road information. The programmers, the people, were aware this could happen when they included the disclaimer.

[Big RR]

Free, Simpson5215? Google is a charity that gives stuff away? No, you "pay" for the information in the same way you pay for NBC's and other ntetwork's programming, by enduring the advertising streaming into your computer when you access their site.

Miles--

If I choose to use them I exercise due dilligence to maintain a safe trip.

And who is saying she should not? All I'm saying is that google cannot and should not be able to avoid all responsibility. Now under the facts of this situation google's responsibility may be high or it may be negligible or somewhere in between--I don't know enough facts to make that call. All I'm saying is that Google has some responsibility to ensure the accuracy of the information it peddles.

Lo--I'm not sure what you're saying; clearly Google provides information and, in this case, provided the woman with a route they said was walkable (even though it ultimately proved not to be safeky walkable). Is the disclaimer sufficient to avoid liability? I don't know, I didn't read it and don't know what care they took in assembling and providing the information. But generally when you provide someone something and make a profit doing so, you have some responsibility for the information you provided. Again, the woman's negligience in this case may have far outweighed that of google (if there is any), but the question here is not whether google was or was not negligient (that will be decided by the facts), but whether google owed any duty to its customers and others with the information they provided.

[loCAtek]

How could google owe any duty when the information is inherently mutable; that it can change, or be misinterpreted, is not under google's control.

[Big RR]

That's true of a lot of things lo; things can change, and information can be misinterpreted, and these may serve to limit or even absolve an entity of liability based on the facts. But, if this didn't happen, and google were negligient or reckless in content of what they provided, they may be liable.

[loCAtek]

Google doesn't claim to make the maps; their site says they compile data from many sources. As far as I tell, this particular map was provided by the State of Utah.

[Big RR]

Google is providing a service, one they ontain revenue from. They are telling people how to get from point A to point B. I don't think they can just say--well, it's not out maps, when they are the entity that compiles th einforation and then selects the route and designates it as a walking route. They have some responsibility to their customers IMHO; otherwise, why are their customers enduring the advertising to obtain the maps. Now the extent of this liability, and even whether it applies in this case, can be determinined by the facts; but I think that Google owes its customers some duty.

[Rick]

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?

I'm pretty sure the directions are based on the parameters that Lo mentioned earlier and are generated by a computer.

Are you asking a computer to have common sense?

Google is providing a service, one they ontain revenue from.

I thought the service was free.

On the other hand I do have to pay for the astrology report in the newspaper...

[Rick]

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

They're not? ...

[Sue U]

The analogy here is not walking off a cliff or off a non-existent bridge. This more like waiting to cross a busy street when a driver stops and waves you to cross in front of him, sending you right into the path of an oncoming vehicle. Depending on all the surrounding circumstances, some portion of liability is going to be assessed to the waving motorist.

It doesn't matter who "makes" the maps or whether you have personally paid the mapmaker. Google is engaging in a commercial enterprise to provide the public with route information, knowing and intending that people will rely on that information; that's clearly one of the ways they're bulding their brand, making money (through advertising) and enhancing corporate value. The question is, what duty if any do they have to the consumers of that information product? Generally, other companies that provide products to the public are held responsible if the product turns out to be defective and results in injury. What makes this company any different?

Again, no one in is claiming that Google is solely and entirely responsible; as is often the case, a number of factors converged, ending in injury. A fair apportionment of each party's responsibility is what is sought.

For those of you who object, do you think Google has no responsibility for the information services it provides? Why not? Under what circumstaces would you say they might be responsible for providing bad information?

These are not idle questions -- I really would appreciate a well-considered response.

[loCAtek]

Google is providing a service, one they ontain revenue from.

Yes, a service, not a quantifiable product. By nature, service can have varying degrees of quality.

Serving up information is not a quantifiable process, due to the unforeseen variables.

It's up to the buyer to beware.

[Sue U]

Google is providing a service, one they ontain revenue from.

Yes, a service, not a quantifiable product. By nature, service can have varying degrees of quality.

It's up to the buyer to beware.

Really? So if you go to your auto mechanic who provides the service of replacing your brakes, but does it wrong, and as a result you crash, it's just too bad, so sad?

[loCAtek]

Well, if I go to an auto mechanic who's service is certified and licensed as experts in the field, I have recourse.

If I go for the same auto service from cuzzin Bob who freelances out of his garage, then I don't and yeah too bad, so sad. As the buyer, I beware and make a choice with my common sense .



ETA - I edited my above post

[Sue U]

Why does "certified and licensed" make a difference? What recourse would you have that you wouldn't have against a non-certified-and-licensed mechanic?

[loCAtek]

Good point.

To be certified and licensed, marks your service as meeting certain standards (usually high ones).

Google makes no such claims that their information service meets any standard at all, like say a news service. Of course, they are trying for 'the best' but that is not a quantifiable standard.

[loCAtek]

Why does "certified and licensed" make a difference? What recourse would you have that you wouldn't have against a non-certified-and-licensed mechanic?

... recourse would be to sue if service were so bad as to cause damage or injury, that it made the claims of meeting certain standards false.

[Rick]

Same lawsuit different perspective

[Sue U]

So do you think there should be no recourse against anyone who doesn't affirmatively claim to meet or exceed some specified standard? Should the negligent mechanic who displays his license and certification on the shop wall be held accountable for his screw-ups, but the negligent mechanic who operates out of a dodgy garage gets a pass? What about trades or businesses where there is no licensing or certification?

[loCAtek]

Well, there are lot of trades and business, like mechanics, that you can not practice for profit, without a license. You go to a non-licensed tradesman and you may not be able to sue for bad services, (as happens so often with hiring day laborers) but you may be able to sue for practicing without a license.

What about trades or businesses where there is no licensing or certification?

Well, then by what standard are you going to sue them by, they haven't claimed to follow any?


...like Google.

[Rick]

Utah Traffic Code - Pedestrian Laws

[Big RR]

Well, there are lot of trades and business, like mechanics, that you can not practice for profit, without a license. You go to a non-licensed tradesman and you may not be able to sue for bad services, (as happens so often with hiring day laborers) but you may be able to sue for practicing without a license.

What about trades or businesses where there is no licensing or certification?

Well, then by what standard are you going to sue them by, they haven't claimed to follow any?


...like Google.

Actually, there ar emany trades that don't require a license; not certain about mechanics, but carpenters are not licensed (although they may have certifications) nor are painters. So you're saying if a painter comes to your house and screws up he owes you nothing because he wasn't claiming to follow any standard? I really doin't understand that. Doesn't anyone who sells you something or provides a service have some modicum of duty toward you, his or her customer, for the quality of what is provided? I think they do.