Philip Paxson’s family are suing the company over his death, alleging that Google negligently failed to show the bridge had fallen nine years earlier.

Mr Paxson died in September 2022 after attempting to drive over the damaged bridge in Hickory, North Carolina.

A spokesperson for Google said the company was reviewing the allegations.

The case was filed in civil court in Wake County on Tuesday.

Mr Paxson, a father of two, was driving home from his daughter’s ninth birthday party at a friend’s house and was in an unfamiliar neighbourhood at the time of his death, according to the family’s lawsuit.

His wife had driven his two daughters home earlier, and he stayed behind to help clean up.

“Unfamiliar with local roads, he relied on Google Maps, expecting it would safely direct him home to his wife and daughters,” lawyers for the family said in a statement announcing the lawsuit.

“Tragically, as he drove cautiously in the darkness and rain, he unsuspectingly followed Google’s outdated directions to what his family later learned for nearly a decade was called the ‘Bridge to Nowhere,’ crashing into Snow Creek, where he drowned.”

Local residents had repeatedly contacted Google to have them change their online maps after the bridge collapsed in 2013, the suit claims.

125 points

Local residents had repeatedly contacted Google to have them change their online maps after the bridge collapsed in 2013, the suit claims.

Barriers that were normally placed across the bridge entrance were missing due to vandalism, according to the Charlotte Observer.

The lawsuit is also suing three local companies, arguing they had a duty to maintain the bridge.

That’s a lot of fucking negligence.

permalink
report
reply
55 points

Barriers that were normally placed across the bridge entrance were missing due to vandalism

vandalism? What were these “barriers”, a handful of orange cones? At minimum they should have put some concrete jersey barriers there.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Really. It’s a collapsed death bridge, FFS.

These “vandals” should have needed industrial machinery to remove the barriers that should have been there.

permalink
report
parent
reply
48 points
*

I came here thinking it recently collapsed and Google Maps just never updated.

It collapsed a decade ago, and both Google Maps and local maintainers organizations (whoever maintains the roads) dropped the ball. You’d think someone would have built a wall blocking that road off by now

permalink
report
parent
reply

[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points
*

Ah sorry, I meant people locally that maintain the roads/signs/barriers. I’ll fix it to be more clear

I agree with your comment though

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I mean, the county and local authorities are supposed to keep the official maps of where the roads are up to date. That’s actually one of the responsibilities of local government.

Google isn’t going out and mapping all these roads, they’re 99% just aggregating the data from all the different jurisdictions and making sure they play nice with each other.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Google is not at fault here, not at all. If at all, Google is just responsible for a not fully up to date product, which could enrage consumers at worst. If that guy literally couldn’t see the road he also was unable to stop for an animal or even human.
It’s not Google’s responsibility to drive responsible for their users; drivers need to do so safely with or without help from maps of any kind.
If the false information had caused an emergency vehicle to be misguided which led to the death of the patient I would agree that Google is at some fault.

Other than that, the companies responsible for caring about the bridge should be at fault here somewhat too, even though it’s not their responsibility to - again - ensure a driver can stop in time at their current speed and the given weather conditions. Yet they should mark a road as dead end and block the road as done at eg. natural cliffs where roads are ending, with proper material, so blocks of concrete stopping even tanks.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points
*

It is not uncommon to go over 20 at night, even in the rain.

This accident could have easily happened without a GPS, because it is a very bad location and has no warnings, however without a GPS it is also unlikely he would have found himself in this area, and it did lead him directly to a road that it had been told was not passable. They do not have a large part of the liability, but they should have a responsibility to warn their users when people have told them about an extreme safety hazard for ten years.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

It’s not uncommon to speed, drink drive, etc, that doesn’t mean those things are right. There’s all sorts of obstacles that might end up on a regular road that you should be able to stop for. Fallen rocks, fallen trees, pedestrians, cyclists, parked cars, traffic tailbacks.

And remember, the bridge did have warnings, which happened to be removed by vandals. That’s not the city’s fault.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-20 points

sounds like a bunch of sue happy fuckwits tbh. sounds like the bridge owners problem. using a scattergun of lawsuits makes them look like greedy cunts

permalink
report
parent
reply
65 points

After looking at the picture of the bridge in the article, it looks like it should have either been fixed or blocked by a large only moveable by heavy machinery barrier of some description.

What if someone was using a 15 year old paper map? Would they get to sue the cartographer?
What if the bridge had collapsed yesterday? Last week? As much as I don’t like Google, I don’t think they’re at fault here.

permalink
report
reply
17 points

A 15 year old paper map doesn’t have the ability to immediately update itself. I don’t think anybody things Google is primarily at fault, that doesn’t mean it should be ignored that they were informed of the dangerous issue numerous times, have the ability to correct it and routinely do so, and ignored the issue in this location which contributed to this death.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

I completely agree, they should sue the local municipality, whoever is responsible for that bridge.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

It says that the residents had repeatedly requested that google update their maps to reflect that the bridge is gone. Not googles fault but they have ignored/missed multiple requests to update their maps so they hold some blame here when you consider that people rely on these types of navigation and google explicitly make google maps to provide help in navigation. I dont think theres nothing there.

It also says the lawsuit includes the suing of three local companies that should have been in charge of maintaining the bridge. So its not even just about google.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
36 points

You’d think after nine years the city would do something about the bridge.

permalink
report
reply
-1 points
*

Yeah, how’s it Google’s fault that there were no signs? blocks? etc.

9 years is excessive? sure maybe.

But bridge collapse that evening while approaching it? Google’s Fault? No…

So where do you draw that line where it’s Google’s Fault?

1 day? 1 month? 1 year?

Yeah, you can’t reasonable put a timeline on something like that.

What happens if it was found out dude used an old paper map? Gonna sue that map company too?

Just because Google has the ability to update maps quicker than old paper, doesn’t mean they are suddenly obligated to.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

So where do you draw that line where it’s Google’s Fault?

1 day? 1 month? 1 year?

Why use these numbers when the number in question is 9 years?

Yeah, you can’t reasonable put a timeline on something like that.

I can certainly say that 9 years is too long to fail to update a map that contains a dangerous route.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

I guess you missed the point.

Yes, we can all certainly say that’s too long.

But carry that thought farther as I explained.

If you are going to make someone legally responsible for something like this, you need to draw a line where it is.
So where do you draw that line?

You reasonable can not, and that is because the premise that Google should be responsible for such a thing is ridiculous.

This case is just a standard US justice system where they just ‘Sue everyone’ and see where the chips fall.

permalink
report
parent
reply
34 points

Probably should sue the city?

permalink
report
reply
11 points

It’s a private bridge. And they are also suing the owners.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I wonder if the bridge owners aren’t also preventing Google from updating the map.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I’d love to hear how you think that would work.

permalink
report
parent
reply
31 points

I am not a guy who blindly trusts technology. Why go forward when you cannot see what’s in front of you? How can that happen?

AFAIK Google makes a disclaimer about it. A bridge can also be destroyed on the same day, so…

permalink
report
reply
28 points

Tragically, as he drove cautiously in the darkness and rain, he unsuspectingly followed Google’s outdated directions to what his family later learned for nearly a decade was called the ‘Bridge to Nowhere,’ crashing into Snow Creek, where he drowned

From the picture I could easily imagine myself falling into the hole if it was dark and rainy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

Presumably the road to the bridge would’ve been blocked off with signs and stuf? Is there any information about whether the signage was inadequate? Doesn’t excuse Google for but updating the map in almost a decade, but it seems either council or the driver have more responsibility here.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

Barriers that were normally placed across the bridge entrance were missing due to vandalism, according to the Charlotte Observer.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

I think more than one party can be at fault at the same time, but it also depends on the situation.

For example. Google maps kept taking rideshare drivers to the wrong entrance of my apartment complex. When I say “wrong,” I mean “nonexistent.” So multiple uber drivers were literally pulling over on the side of a busy street near a freeway on ramp with no bike lane or shoulder. They’d hit their flashers and stop in the middle of the road, blocking the on ramp lane. I’m in the actual parking lot, not tracking them in the app, so I don’t know they’re around the corner. I had two drivers just leave. Did they let me know they were going to cancel and drive away? Fuck no. The actual parking lot and driveway is only a few yards away. If they don’t pass right by it, they can at least see the driveway. I mean, come on. Use your brain.

After the first time this happened, I tried to move the pin in the app, but it just kept sending drivers to the same place. I started texting them after they accepted the ride, but not all would see it. I contacted google and the pickup spot did change - to a back entrance on the opposite side of the complex that has no parking lot or place to stop unless you have a gate opener. For fuck’s sake.

Anyway, it’s both of their faults.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

driving in the dark and rain is mad sketch. This is more than googles fault. Its also the city for not properly blocking it off. “Vandalism” is just a sorry excuse

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

During my time visiting NC I didn’t trust gmaps at all. It would give you 1m shortcuts over dirt roads then back onto the same highway, send you in circles and give you wild routes that somehow made it. It was really interesting after growing up in a newer city with a grid layout.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@lemmy.ml

Create post

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

Community stats

  • 3.2K

    Monthly active users

  • 2.9K

    Posts

  • 45K

    Comments

Community moderators