Woman sues Google after highway knockdown
Did it say play with the traffic?
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 1710 Prospector Ave in Park City.
According to the suit the directions advised her to perambulate along Deer Valley Drive, otherwise known as State Route 224.
This, according to the suit, is an area "where vehicles travel at a high rate of speed and [is] devoid of pedestrian sidewalks".
And unfortunately, one driver struck Rosenberg, "causing her to suffer severe physical, emotional, and mental injuries... and causing her to incur medical expenses in an amount exceeding $100,000".
A quick rummage through Google Maps confirms that this is indeed the service's advised route for foot sloggers, though on a PC it includes a warning about possible dangers. It is not clear if the warnings show up on mobile devices.
The suit states: "Google undertook the duty to exercise reasonable care in providing safe directions to patrons of its Google Maps service. [But] Google failed to warn plaintiff Rosenberg of said known dangers..."
Rosenberg - who is also suing the driver - is asking to the court to award her damages in excess of $100,000.
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. ®
Did this sort of thing happen before GPS?
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."
"Almost as puzzling as why she has set the lower bar for suing the world's biggest ad broker at a mere $100,000."
Because she's a fucking idiot, would be my guess. At least so the evidence suggests.
these kinds of stories always come from the shallow end of the pond.
burned by coffee, sued maccy dees - a yank.
got in the back of a winabago to make a cuppa - cos it had cruise control - nutha yank.
got in a wreck cos too lazy to look over shoulder before pulling out - that would be a yank then.
the overwhelming majoriy of darwins - you guessed it
plus electing BUSH
you may not all be hard of thinking, but a demographically significant number are. And your legal system is bizzarrely skewed in their favour.
Just once i'd like to hear a verdict "to stupid to deserve the protection of the law, oh and PS you are off the electoral role forever"