Google Maps User Sues Google After She's Struck by a Car
In a frivolous lawsuit that ranks right up there with people suing McDonald's for burning themselves drinking hot coffee, a woman is suing Google because she claims Google Maps directions led her to a highway, where she was struck by a car. One day last January, Los Angeles native Lauren Rosenberg was trying to get from 96 Daly Street to 1710 Prospector Avenue in Park City, Utah. To finder her way, Rosenberg looked up the walking directions using Google Maps on her RIM BlackBerry smartphone. Here is what that query looks like in Google Maps from the desktop:
Note the red arrow pointing to Deer Valley Drive, aka Utah State Route 224. That's the busy highway where Rosenberg was struck by driver Patrick Harwood, who along with Google is named in the lawsuit. No sidewalks or biking tracks of any kind on Deer Valley Drive. Please note that Google Maps walking directions are in beta and that Google provides the disclaimer I circled above: "Use caution - This route may be missing sidewalks or pedestrian paths." That disclaimer is also provided in Google Maps for BlackBerry, which is the app the woman used to find her way before she was nailed by the car. Harwood is suing Google and Harwood to cover her $100,000 in medical expenses ($100,000), as well as punitive damages. In her May 27 complaint, Harwood's attorneys state:
As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant Google's careless, reckless and negligent providing of unsafe directions, Plaintiff Lauren Rosenberg was led onto a dangerous highway, and was thereby stricken by a motor vehicle, causing her to suffer severe permanent physical, emotional, and mental injuries, including pain and suffering. What do you think? Google put in a disclaimer for its beta product. I could see how Rosenberg would have a suit against Harwood's insurance company, and perhaps against Harwood if he was driving too fast, but sue Google over this? Nonsense. That's just another example of how lawyers like to wring money out of big corporations where they can. If Rosenberg prevails, there will be a huge line for the millions of people who used Google Maps, were steered wrong and had a bad day. That's a dangerous precedent not only for Google but for any Web company trying to provide a free service to help adults find their way. Read the full complaint, filed in the central district of Utah's District Court, here: Rosenberg v. Harwood (& Google) Search Engine Land's Danny Sullivan brought the story to bear here late last week. He points out that neither Google nor Microsoft Bing, which provided similar directions, should point pedestrians to walk along busy highways, but maybe this woman should be sued for lacking the common sense to not walk there. |
Comments (8)
Please stop citing that McDonald's coffee litigation as an example of trivial abuse of the civil court system. It was not. The victim was an elderly woman who suffered 2nd degree burns over her abdomen and legs, and the McDonald's in question had been warned twice before to turn down the temperature of the coffee and did not. Moreover it was a jury of presumably rational men and women like the ones who read this magazine who awarded her the huge amount of money she got, after hearing all these facts and some others.
Posted by rwgreene | June 1, 2010 1:45 PM
Oh come on, When I was a kid, and we did something stupid like this lady did, we said that was dumb and moved on. Hoping no one saw us being stupid.These days though, any money grubbing stupid A*$ like this lady looks at the deep pockets of Google and sees nothing but dollar signs. Adding to it, some sleaze of a lawyer whos gonna take his cut of it. Thats whats so wrong with America today, all of these Sue Happy Idiots.
Posted by Chris | June 3, 2010 11:33 AM
Ms. Rosenberg is definitely not accepting her failure to excercise reasonable caution. She turns onto a road that has no sidewalks and fast moving vehicles and blames everyone else for her ensuing injuries. We don't know if shw was walking on the pavement or on the shoulder of the road, but one can guess that she was on the side of the pavement. Not something that I would do - nor would most reasonable persons. Walk in the grass, get away from the pavement and keep youself safe. There is no indication that the driver of the vehicle left the roadway and struck her.
Where has personal responsibility gone?
Posted by Ray | July 8, 2010 3:35 PM
Hard to argue with you on this one, Ray.
Posted by Clint Boulton
| July 8, 2010 4:20 PM
Agree with RW Greene, not the later commenters. The McD cite is bogus. Lawsuits are one of the few tools citizens have against immense corporations. Pretty clear elected officials aren't.
Check out http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm, also see Wikipedia
Wouldn't know if Clint got the facts right or if you can legitimately generalize from this case for continuing to block lawsuits.
Posted by NYB | July 12, 2010 10:05 AM
First question: Is the plaintiff mentally challenged or visually impaired?
Second question: Is the plaintiff deemed a hazard to themselves or to those around them?
When this type of thing happens why does no one step in and try to have the plaintiff placed in a mental health facility. If her computer (e-mail) told her to kill her neighbor would she have the common sense to not follow those instructions. If she went to a web site that said to send $5,000 to some Nigerian prince in Africa would she?
A person that blindly follows the instructions, disclaimer or not, from a computer, device or even a person, without using common sense is not only a danger to themselves but a danger to those around them and should be isolated from the mass populous, less she decide to dry an infant in a microwave.
Posted by Ray Mann | July 20, 2010 8:47 PM
When I first heard this story I agreed with the "frivolous" tag but - to play devil's advocate- it is if there was a booth where you gave a guy $5 to give you directions, and those directions took you on that highway, I think that guy is responsible, no matter what kind of "beta" disclaimer he had. And I think Google's ads constitute a kind of payment.
Also, she isn't just suing Google, Google was named in the suit. I'm not a lawyer but in a suit like this you sue everyone who might in any way be blamed because if the driver can find anyone else with a bit of responsibility the driver can push the blame to them and the woman gets nothing.
And "money grubbing" is way out of line. I will be surprised if $100,000 will cover her long term medical expenses, so that isn't outrageous. And unless she was standing in the road, she should not have been hit and she shouldn't have to go bankrupt paying for physical therapy the rest of her life. Punitive damages are up to the court.
Posted by Dano | July 29, 2010 7:57 AM
Amazing! for a non-lawyer, you sure sound like one. I hold that others shouldn't have to pay for someone's stupidity. We're not talking about a child or someone who is infirm, but a young woman.
Posted by Clint Boulton
| July 29, 2010 8:01 AM