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“Tragically, as he drove cautiously in the darkness and rain, he unsuspectingly followed Google’s outdated directions to what his family later learned for nearly a decade was called the ‘Bridge to Nowhere,’ crashing into Snow Creek, where he drowned.”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.
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.
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.
Really. It’s a collapsed death bridge, FFS.
These “vandals” should have needed industrial machinery to remove the barriers that should have been there.
I came here thinking it recently collapsed and Google Maps just never updated.
It collapsed a decade ago, and both Google Maps and local
maintainersorganizations (whoever maintains the roads) dropped the ball. You’d think someone would have built a wall blocking that road off by now[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.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.
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.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
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…
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
So how the hell do they blame google instead of the local government for failing to keep up the signs and blockades?
It’s such an idiotic case, “the guy drove blindly off a bridge because his navigation told him to”. So in the old days, he would’ve had a paper map and would have driven off the bridge the same way.
Multiple entities can hold responsibility, including:
The lawsuit is also suing three local companies, arguing they had a duty to maintain the bridge.
This was a long running problem that Google was contacted to fix and didn’t. They don’t bear sole responsibility, but that is negligence that contributed to his death.
This is not on Google and in any way, shape or form. Google Maps is not a civil engineering project. Google is not a state or local governing entity.
What’s next? Google gets sued because someone missed out on an important interview? “Google Maps mislead me and caused me to lose out on a prospective job offer.”
I don’t think we know that yet, and I think the discovery will be interesting.
How many reports were there? Were they credible? What other sources of truth did Google consult in deciding to ignore those reports?
Google gets lots of reports and needs to filter out spam, and especially malicious reports like trying to mark a competitor’s business as closed, or trying to get less traffic in your neighborhood for selfish reasons. It wouldn’t be reasonable for Google to accept every user suggestion either.
So if Google reached out to the town and the town said the bridge is fine, then it’s not Google’s fault. If they ignored multiple credible complaints because the area was too rural to care about, that might be negligent.
the fault is shared. google was mentioned moreso because its big company and that makes a headline
I don’t know whether you didn’t read the article or are just one of these simpletons incapable of holding an opinion more nuanced that “good or evil”, but they are suing the owners.
So in the old days, he would’ve had a paper map and would have driven off the bridge the same way.
Paper maps don’t talk to you and tell you which way to go, do they?
I seriously can’t decide whether you’re some Google shill or you’ve just given your brain the day off.
Nice b8 m8 not going to respond to a weak troll :)
Yeah, that’s definitely more the council’s responsibility then (or those vandals, if they find them).
How in hell were vandals able to remove anything?! There should have been dragon’s teeth or something similar blocking the road.
It sounds like their “barrier” was probably traffic cones or sawhorses—easily knocked over, stolen, or destroyed. What should have been there, but apparently wasn’t, was a double or triple row of concrete jersey barriers. Or something else that was too heavy or awkward to be easily stolen, or destroyed without leaving serious residue. Nothing like hitting concrete chunks all over the road to make someone slow waaaaaay down and take a look around.
Yeah, I’d say that whoever was responsible for keeping that road blocked off was the major culprit in this. Google is just a “they have deep pockets, and we might be lucky and get a judge who doesn’t know squat about how nav systems work” add-on.
Knowing about how nav systems work would make them more likely to find against Google, because an online nav system is trivially updatable. Even if they wanted to be extra cautious a simple call to the local police or a peek at a satellite image in the preceding 9 years would give confirmation.
deleted by creator
It wasn’t mentioned in the summary on top, I assumed there wasn’t anything extra in the article.
deleted by creator
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.
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
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.
Probably should sue the city?
It’s a private bridge. And they are also suing the owners.
I wonder if the bridge owners aren’t also preventing Google from updating the map.
I’d love to hear how you think that would work.
You’d think after nine years the city would do something about the bridge.
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.
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.
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.
This is a ridiculous argument. We set limits on things all the time. That the limit will be arbitrary doesn’t mean there simply cannot be liability. 1 year is fine, 6 months is fine, hell, 1 month is fine. The company’s internal processes will expand or contract to fit legal liability.
You don’t need to draw a line for this case. You just need to decide if 9 years is too long.
This literally has nothing to do with Google. As shitty as Google is, it’s entirely the city and the driver’s fault.
Let’s get this straight.
Google publishes maps that are inaccurate. They were informed of the inaccuracies multiple times, yet did nothing. Subsequently, someone died following their incorrect maps that they couldn’t be bothered to fix — despite the fact that a fucked bridge is clearly potentially super dangerous.
And you think this has “literally nothing” to do with Google?
Are you a shareholder or something? That’s some hardcore corporate arse-kissing, imo.
Lol I think the driver with fucking eyeballs should see they’re driving off of a bridge. The maps on Google is literally irrelevant. Not once does your comment suggest they’re somehow a conscious human being that has eyes and should be looking where they drive.
Maps don’t have to be right for you to know that maybe you should actually look forward when you’re driving, but apparently expecting basic ass human autonomy is being a corporate share holder, what a joke. The driver is responsible for their safety, they’re the one’s controlling the vehicle. GPS navigation is a suggestion on where to go, not the final verdict which you for some reason think it is.
Lol I think the driver with fucking eyeballs should see they’re driving off of a bridge. The maps on Google is literally irrelevant. Not once does your comment suggest they’re somehow a conscious human being that has eyes and should be looking where they drive.
Maps don’t have to be right for you to know that maybe you should actually look forward when you’re driving, but apparently expecting basic ass human autonomy is being a corporate share holder, what a joke.
The driver is responsible for their safety, they’re the one’s controlling the vehicle. GPS navigation is a suggestion on where to go, not the final verdict which you for some reason think it is. Did you think the driver just saw the road, put his hands up and think, “Well shit, Maps says to drive off this cliff, I guess I have to!”
deleted by creator
When you are using any sort of navigation app, do you believe the navigation is the final verdict? That if it tells you to drive off a cliff that you have to? If you disagree, then you agree that it’s not Google Maps at fault here. That’s why that logic is dumb as hell. The maps provider is completely irrelevant, and so is the map being correct or not.
My Google Maps didn’t tell me that there was road under construction and to merge into a lane. So I guess I should’ve just gunned it and run everyone over then, makes sense.
deleted by creator
Yeah and that’s irrelevant. If a navigation app you you to drive off a bridge, would you? If no, then you agree I’m right lol. I don’t understand the mental gymnastics.
deleted by creator
You can keep thinking I’m simping for corps, but that makes literally no sense. The same would hold true if they were running OSMAnd~ or Organic Maps. Map provider is literally irrelevant.
@cupcakezealot @mojo probably 90 % with five percent still being unable to understand the directions given to them
It reminds me of the Office episode where Michaels GPS is like “take the next left” so he starts driving into a lake.
Google is terrible and could have updated sooner, but not their responsibility.
I don’t see why residents did not construct a makeshift barricade themselves after years of inaction.
> Pay taxes to local government to maintain road
> Local government does not maintain road
> Pay taxes to local government to maintain road while you maintain the road instead
I see your point, but I think there is a bigger issue.
Edit: nvm, apparently it is a private bridge?
This is tragic. Is the bridge also marked on Open Street Maps?
On OSM all it takes is one person to delete that bridge if it isn’t there anymore. That is what is so great about wikis.
Doesn’t that also mean that ONE malicious person can get traffic off their local street or hurt a competitor’s business?
Just like moderating Lemmy, effectively policing user-generated content is a huge challenge.
It does, but if someone makes changes that actively degrade the map, they can be reverted and blocked from editing. There are monitoring tools available and in general things like that don’t tend to happen, at least not in areas with an active good faith community.
Google Maps literally directs me to drive off a bridge all the time. How do I get that fixed?
Local residents had repeatedly contacted Google to have them change their online maps after the bridge collapsed in 2013
You don’t
Use Chrome and stop insulting Google for sunsetting products. Embrace our lord and saviour Google and Google won’t try to get rid of you.
Make a whiny opinion piece apparently lol
Removed by mod
Based on the picture in the article, maybe just look at where you’re driving for once. If you can’t see far enough slow down.
Tho it’s definitely the street maintainers responsibility to put up enough warnings/barriers
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The family of a US man who drowned after driving off a collapsed bridge are claiming that he died because Google failed to update its maps.
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, 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.
“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.
The original article contains 373 words, the summary contains 179 words. Saved 52%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
They should also sue Rand Mcnally
I’d really be more concerned if Google was directing people to drive onto a collapsed bridge.
