Woman Sues Google Maps

[McRat]

Because it did not explain how to walk:

http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/article/816724--woman-who-walked-onto-highway-sues-google-maps


A Utah woman is suing the search engine Google, claiming its maps function gave her walking directions that led her onto a major highway, where she was struck by a car.

The lawsuit seeks more than $100,000 in damages.

Lauren Rosenberg sought directions between two addresses in Utah about 3 kilometres apart. The top result suggested that Rosenberg follow a busy rural highway for several hundred metres. The highway does not have sidewalks. One stretch is blocked by a noise barrier that pushes pedestrians closer to the roadside.

After walking on to the highway, Rosenberg was struck by a car. The driver, Patrick Harwood, is also named in the suit.

Google has pointed out that the directions Rosenberg sought come with a warning of caution for pedestrians. Rosenberg claims that she accessed the Maps function on her Blackberry mobile device, where it did not include the warning.

Others have pointed out that Rosenberg might have been best served by her own eyes after she reached a T-junction and found herself confronted with a patently unsafe walk


Guess she didn't press the "I Feel Lucky" button? :confused:

[RiceMonster]

Yet another ridiculous trial that would only waste the court's time. It's her own fault for walking onto a highway.

[Legendary_Bibo]

A fine example of Darwinism at its finest.

[m4tic]

She must be blind. Don't people look left and right before crossing.

[McRat]

This could be next Weapon Of Mass Destruction.

Have a program give Google Maps directions to a whole region of a country to walk across busy streets. You could kill MILLIONS!!!!


Walk 1 km onto the Golden Gate Bridge.
Make a sharp right.

[MindSz]

She must be blind. Don't people look left and right before crossing.

I think the problem is an appalling lack of common sense.

[McRat]

Here's the question:

What kind of lawyer would tell their client that suing somebody for giving you directions is morally (and legally) correct?

If the lawyer is successful, he will have made it risky to give advice or help to a stranger.

He should be disbarred. Google and the rest of humanity should sue him.

[sydbat]

common sense.No such thing.

As for the lawsuit, because it is in the US, it will likely go all the way to trail. Remember, McDonald's did not think that the woman who spilt coffee onto herself, from her own stupidity of not putting a lid on the damn thing, would make it to trial, let alone win.

[McRat]

In San Diego, California, a 15-year old girl opened a can of hairspray with a can opener right next to the stove. The open flame caused an explosion, and she was disfigured horribly.

She won $175k from Aqua Net, the hairspray maker.

I feel bad for the girl, but Aqua Net cannot legally request that you take an IQ test before purchasing their products.

[SoFl W]

She must be blind. Don't people look left and right before crossing.

well... had a friend from England visit the states, he looked to the right first as he stepped off the sidewalk. Yes there was a car coming from the left.

[KiwiNZ]

Here's the question:

What kind of lawyer would tell their client that suing somebody for giving you directions is morally (and legally) correct?

If the lawyer is successful, he will have made it risky to give advice or help to a stranger.

He should be disbarred. Google and the rest of humanity should sue him.

Easy DOLLARS IN BANK ACCOUNT

[frostschutz]

Google Maps directions are funny. Not too long ago it told you literally to go for a swim when you asked it to produce a route from some location in Europe to the US. Even today, for some strange reason, asking it to produce a route from Berlin to Paris, it somehow makes you cross the sea twice and you can actually visit London en-route...

:lolflag:

Not quite the route I'd take when trying to get to Paris (I'm not a very good swimmer) and no doubt many of the roads it lists there are not exactly meant for walking either.

However unfortunately these things happen as people get more and more dependant on technology. Just recently there was a case (or possibly one of a series) where someone took a U-turn on the highway because the GPS said so...

[Minipalmer]

The problem with this situation is that she will probably win because the warning was not displayed on her Blackberry. And when she wins, Google will have to make a warning that is displayed ON THE MAP, so that no one can claim the same thing.

The good thing is that Google has never ending amounts of money and this will not hurt their business in the slightest.

The bad things is that this person lives to die another day. We've all heard of these ridiculous lawsuits where someone on a bike gets hit and sues the bike company. I just can't even fathom how you would convince yourself that you could win a lawsuit, and then actually win it.

[sandyd]

Easy DOLLARS IN BANK ACCOUNT
hey kiwi, how long is your other other suit gonna be at the cleaners for eh? :D

[ElSlunko]

She's a dangerous walker! She needs to be kept off the streets. Trying to beat the traffic...

[pwnst*r]

Humanity :(

[Legendary_Bibo]

Any idiot would know not to entirely trust google maps. I remember I used it to find a library and it told me that it was the middle of Tempe town lake which is just a very large canal.

[mickie.kext]

The guy who was driving should sue her for hitting his car.

[lisati]

Strange things can happen, but there's sometimes an explanation.

A few years ago my sister flying into town and renting a car, so I used Google maps to get a link for driving directions from Wellington airport to my place. Trouble is, following the instructions to the letter would have resulted in a journey the wrong way down a one way street.

Explanation: the roading layout had changed a few months earlier and Google hadn't got round to updating their database yet.

[ElSlunko]

This also reminds me of those Dutch tourists who's GPS unit took them through one of the worst neighborhoods in Brasil and pretty sure one of them got shot.

[McRat]

I used an iPhone to give me directions to the local Apple store. It would have had me drive right through a building. So we parked, got out on foot and found it.

I guess I should have just floored it and hired an attorney later...:confused:

[lostinxlation]

The top candidate for Stella Award 2010. Too bad they haven't updated it since 2007.

[jrothwell97]

Natural selection in action... unfortunately, Darwin's model collapses when no-win-no-fee law firms are introduced.

[angry_johnnie]

I think the problem is an appalling lack of common sense.


problem is that, usually, common sense is made of a lot of common, and only very little sense. :p

[Berk]

No such thing.

As for the lawsuit, because it is in the US, it will likely go all the way to trail. Remember, McDonald's did not think that the woman who spilt coffee onto herself, from her own stupidity of not putting a lid on the damn thing, would make it to trial, let alone win.


From my memory that was a slightly different situation. McDonalds knowingly changed suppliers for their cups, going for a cheaper design that they knew could leak, they also figured they'd have the money to pay any claims off so weighed the costs and reckoned they'd pay less in settlements than they would save in total.
As it was, it didn't pay off, as the decision making was exposed showing that McDonalds knew the cups could cause harm before they bought them.

(Like I say though, this is from memory, so may be slightly wrong.)

[sydbat]

The guy who was driving should sue her for hitting his car.I wonder what would happen if the guy did exactly this?

Guy from car: "Your Honour, this woman just came out of nowhere and hit my car! I'm asking for repair damages and psychological damages. In total, approximately $100,000,000."

Judge: "I agree and award you all the damages you have asked for. Plus, I have made sure this woman will never walk out into unsuspecting traffic again by giving her a life sentence for stupidity."

If only...

[bob-linux-user]

There is a detailed explanation of the Mcdonalds case here..

http://www.caoc.com/CA/index.cfm?event=showPage&pg=facts

which suggests to me it is not quite the trivial lawsuit some may think it is.

My first reaction to the "Woman Sues Google" report was that it is an urban myth but I don't think it is. May be she is just mad.

[McRat]

From my memory that was a slightly different situation. McDonalds knowingly changed suppliers for their cups, going for a cheaper design that they knew could leak, they also figured they'd have the money to pay any claims off so weighed the costs and reckoned they'd pay less in settlements than they would save in total.
As it was, it didn't pay off, as the decision making was exposed showing that McDonalds knew the cups could cause harm before they bought them.

(Like I say though, this is from memory, so may be slightly wrong.)

Here's the case:

The McDonald's Coffee Massacre case has been used extensively in Law Schools to hide their embarrassment at it. This has been rationalized by the world's best legal minds. But it still puzzles people who have common sense.

But nobody disputes the facts.

A 79 year old lady is in a car driven by her grandson and goes to a drive-thru restrarant and orders hot coffee.
When she goes to put creamer in it, the cup spills on her, she gets burned and requires a trip to the hospital, which is short and inexpensive and covered by insurance.

She sues and is awarded $3 million dollars.

If you die in an airplane accident you get about $250k.

No matter how they show it, the facts don't change. They claim McDonalds was deliberately trying to hurt people by selling hot coffee. That was the crime.

[chriswyatt]

I wish these people would get charged and not rewarded. Really if anything they should be charged for wasting court time / money / resources.

[Zerocool Djx]

sudo apt-get tack-hammer-for-moron

[sydbat]

There is a detailed explanation of the Mcdonalds case here..

http://www.caoc.com/CA/index.cfm?event=showPage&pg=facts

which suggests to me it is not quite the trivial lawsuit some may think it is.

My first reaction to the "Woman Sues Google" report was that it is an urban myth but I don't think it is. May be she is just mad.The link you chose is quite biased. It is from a LAWYER site after all.


I wish these people would get charged and not rewarded. Really if anything they should be charged for wasting court time / money / resources.That can happen too...

[SoFl W]

Now that I think about....
On Google maps I have seen mistakes and reported it. In the same city it listed one hospital that was no longer there and another very big hospital in the wrong place. It wasn't even close to the correct area, off by about seven to ten miles, not on the correct street. I don't remember (and too lazy to check now) if it also listed the hospital at the correct location as well.

With my GPS I would use it as a car locater if I was ever in a huge parking lot. While playing around I set my car's location which was parked in the street in front of the house. I was in the back yard and mapped to the car. The direction it took me was out to the front of the house, past the car, around the block two streets over, out to the main road, to the next block, and back up the street in the other direction. I tried to see if it would say "you have arrived" when I walked past the car (the end point) but it didn't.

[nerdopolis]

Google Maps directions are funny. Not too long ago it told you literally to go for a swim when you asked it to produce a route from some location in Europe to the US. Even today, for some strange reason, asking it to produce a route from Berlin to Paris, it somehow makes you cross the sea twice and you can actually visit London en-route...

:lolflag:

Not quite the route I'd take when trying to get to Paris (I'm not a very good swimmer) and no doubt many of the roads it lists there are not exactly meant for walking either.

However unfortunately these things happen as people get more and more dependant on technology. Just recently there was a case (or possibly one of a series) where someone took a U-turn on the highway because the GPS said so...

I remember that happened... I searched for an address, and all results from countries across the ocean appeared. I tried one just to see what it would do. Sure enough it came up with a whole bunch of legitimate sounding directions (drive here, and turn here), except for the one that came out of nowhere saying "Swim across the Atlantic Ocean" and some number of miles. (I think it might have even given a time estimate too... I forgot)

Its a wonder that no one tried that, has to get rescued by the coast guard, and tried to sue Google...

[HappinessNow]

I used an iPhone to give me directions to the local Apple store. It would have had me drive right through a building. So we parked, got out on foot and found it.

I guess I should have just floored it and hired an attorney later...:confused: LOL...:P

Perhaps Google should sue the lady or...nevermind :P

[chillicampari]

...
A 79 year old lady is in a car driven by her grandson and goes to a drive-thru restrarant and orders hot coffee.
When she goes to put creamer in it, the cup spills on her, she gets burned and requires a trip to the hospital, which is short and inexpensive and covered by insurance.



Everything I've read stated that she required skin grafts.

[Frogs Hair]

The grandfather of all junk lawsuits was the hot coffee burn and they keep getting more creative despite attempts get rid of them.

[v1ad]

hot coffee you burn yourself if you are not careful, happens to everyone thats why you don't open coffee in your lap.

and this woman needs to be sued for stupidity.

[MadCookie]

Haha

[McRat]

Everything I've read stated that she required skin grafts.

The first claim was for $20,000. I was in the burn ward of a hospital for 1 week and the bill was $175,000.

Lots of people have had a small cup of scalding hot coffee poured on them. None of them had $270,000 worth of damages.

But the real story is that hot coffee has been served worldwide for hundreds of years. Only when a "deep-pockets" company serves it, is it a crime. McD's didn't spill the coffee on her.

[KiwiNZ]

hey kiwi, how long is your other other suit gonna be at the cleaners for eh? :D

They lost it

I should sue

Yay

I could be rich . no wait

ummm

I could sue

[samjh]

The first claim was for $20,000. I was in the burn ward of a hospital for 1 week and the bill was $175,000.

Lots of people have had a small cup of scalding hot coffee poured on them. None of them had $270,000 worth of damages.

But the real story is that hot coffee has been served worldwide for hundreds of years. Only when a "deep-pockets" company serves it, is it a crime. McD's didn't spill the coffee on her.

No, but McD's did serve coffee that was far above normal temperature.

The rest of your post is misleading. Liebeck wanted to settle for $20,000 initially, but McDonalds only offered $800. $800 for 3rd degree burns to 6% of the body requiring skin grafts. I don't think most people would be satisfied with a $800 payout for skin grafts; indeed I think most people would find it insulting. How many coffee burns do you know which required skin grafts and 3rd degree burns to 6% of the body? That fact alone shows there was something seriously amiss with the coffee, and that the case wasn't merely another example of a casual coffee spill.

There is a consistent failure to mention that it was the jury who awarded Liebeck $200,000 + $2.7M. The judge reduced the figure to $640,000 total in the end.

[betrunkenaffe]

So J-Walking isn't illegal in the states?

[Frak]

So J-Walking isn't illegal in the states?
It is, just never enforced.

[JohnnyC35]

hot coffee you burn yourself if you are not careful, happens to everyone thats why you don't open coffee in your lap.

and this woman needs to be sued for stupidity.

What? Your not suppose to open your coffee in your lap? But that's easiest when I am driving with my knees, reading the news on my blackberry, and eating a breakfast wrap!!

Next you're going to tell me I'm not suppose to iron clothes while I am wearing them.
(Yes they do have that warning)

:P

[kamaboko]

Looks like she needed to see this first.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9jeh4mA5us

[kamaboko]

No, but McD's did serve coffee that was far above normal temperature.

The rest of your post is misleading. Liebeck wanted to settle for $20,000 initially, but McDonalds only offered $800. $800 for 3rd degree burns to 6% of the body requiring skin grafts. I don't think most people would be satisfied with a $800 payout for skin grafts; indeed I think most people would find it insulting. How many coffee burns do you know which required skin grafts and 3rd degree burns to 6% of the body? That fact alone shows there was something seriously amiss with the coffee, and that the case wasn't merely another example of a casual coffee spill.

There is a consistent failure to mention that it was the jury who awarded Liebeck $200,000 + $2.7M. The judge reduced the figure to $640,000 total in the end.

Not only that, but McDonald's had prior complaints and made no action to resolve the matter. Poorly insulated cups and the coffee was far too hot. Moreover, and one thing people never hear about, the coffee was so hot it melted her nylons into her skin. That's frackin hot! Imagine having nylons melting into your nuts. Yeah, I'd sue the hell out of them too. It was a case discussed in a business law class I took.

[McRat]

Not only that, but McDonald's had prior complaints and made no action to resolve the matter. Poorly insulated cups and the coffee was far too hot. Moreover, and one thing people never hear about, the coffee was so hot it melted her nylons into her skin. That's frackin hot! Imagine having nylons melting into your nuts. Yeah, I'd sue the hell out of them too. It was a case discussed in a business law class I took.

Nylon does not melt in boiling water. Give it a try.

Are you saying they make the coffee using something that boils at a higher temp that water? It melts about 400 degF, water boils at 212.

You have been duped by the Lawyer's Associations. They spent a lot on marketing to dupe you, so you shouldn't feel too bad.


They spend a lot on pushing their side of this in schools to avoid tort reform.


Nor does the design of the cup come into play. She SPILTED the cup on herself, and when a lawyer asked for $20k, they said no.

If a human death is worth $250k in court, why is a coffee spill worth $3 million?

McDonalds gets tens of thousands of lawsuits a year. 700 for coffee? Almost off the radar. Most are "slip and fall".

BTW - I have been in court and heard lawyers say things that are scientifically retarded, like Nylon-melts-at-180F. Judges are also lawyers. They aren't any smarter than other lawyers. They are usually just friends of politicians. They believe pretty much anything you tell them.

[forrestcupp]

A fine example of Darwinism at its finest.

It's a poor example. She survived! ;)

I'm going to sue Ponderosa because I ate ten plates from their buffet and I ended up puking. They didn't warn me not to eat more than I can handle.

[tom66]

These lawsuits are ridiculous and as far as I can see the only reason for the massive 10-page disclaimer on web sites.

BY READING THIS POST YOU HEREBY HAVE AGREED THEREUPON ONTO NOT SUING THE AUTHOR OF SAID POST (herein referred to as "That Guy"). That Guy TAKES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY OF YOUR ACTIONS INCLUDING ANY ACTIONS WHICH MAY LEAD TO YOU RE-READING SAID STATEMENT OF DISCLAIMERMENT (spell?). YOU ALSO AGREE TO SIGN OVER YOUR SOUL TO That Guy...

I mean, if you are stupid enough to do things like this, then should you really be allowed to have a large sum of money?

[chillicampari]

The first claim was for $20,000. I was in the burn ward of a hospital for 1 week and the bill was $175,000.

Lots of people have had a small cup of scalding hot coffee poured on them. None of them had $270,000 worth of damages.

But the real story is that hot coffee has been served worldwide for hundreds of years. Only when a "deep-pockets" company serves it, is it a crime. McD's didn't spill the coffee on her.

Yeah, I have no idea if your burn treatment cost the same as her burn treatment and whoever else's (insert random person here) burn treatment. Not sure they flat fee those type of things.

Sucks you were in the burn ward though.


It's a poor example. She survived! ;)

I'm going to sue Ponderosa because I ate ten plates from their buffet and I ended up puking. They didn't warn me not to eat more than I can handle.

Ponderosa for free and money back. Sounds like a good plan! :P

[kamaboko]

Nylon does not melt in boiling water. Give it a try.

Are you saying they make the coffee using something that boils at a higher temp that water? It melts about 400 degF, water boils at 212.

You have been duped by the Lawyer's Associations. They spent a lot on marketing to dupe you, so you shouldn't feel too bad.


They spend a lot on pushing their side of this in schools to avoid tort reform.


Nor does the design of the cup come into play. She SPILTED the cup on herself, and when a lawyer asked for $20k, they said no.

If a human death is worth $250k in court, why is a coffee spill worth $3 million?

McDonalds gets tens of thousands of lawsuits a year. 700 for coffee? Almost off the radar. Most are "slip and fall".

BTW - I have been in court and heard lawyers say things that are scientifically retarded, like Nylon-melts-at-180F. Judges are also lawyers. They aren't any smarter than other lawyers. They are usually just friends of politicians. They believe pretty much anything you tell them.

Correction, the scalding water burned her skin and the nylons fused with her skin. If you don't think so, give it a try. Boil some water, lay some nylons over your crotch and poor the water. Let me know how it turns out.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

[Spike-X]

We've all heard of these ridiculous lawsuits where someone on a bike gets hit and sues the bike company.

I haven't. Got any links?

Regarding the lawsuit in question though, I sincerely hope this woman gets exactly what's coming to her.

[Legendary_Bibo]

Since how we're discussing ridiculous court cases, I have one. Out here in Arizona there was someone who was breaking in, and robbing another person, but because the victim didn't clean their house the robber broke something (neck, back, spine, leg? I'm not sure), and sued the owner. I think they won actually.

Also in Arizona, you're not allowed to have a weapon better than the robber for self defense. So if they have a knife, you can't use a gun. Also you have to make sure they don't get too badly hurt. It's at the point now where when someone breaks into your house you might as well help them carry your stuff so they get out of your hair quicker considering the fact that our police force is no better than the cops on Reno 911.

Another stupid law I came across is that you can't have more than 3 vibrators in a household, but that's a different story...:confused:

[Spike-X]

The link you chose is quite biased.

Sure it is. Biased in favour of the facts.

[McRat]

Correction, the scalding water burned her skin and the nylons fused with her skin. If you don't think so, give it a try. Boil some water, lay some nylons over your crotch and poor the water. Let me know how it turns out.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

Dunno.

If she had third degree burns, (bleeding burns) and skin grafts, I can't imagine why a lawyer would settle for $20k. His fee will normally be about 40% + costs, or about 70% of the settlement. No way would $6k cover those kinds of bills.

Pretty sure the lawyers lied about a lot of the damages, which is normal. Lawyers seldom get in trouble for lying.

Like I said, this case was used as a Poster Child for tort reform, so all the Trial Lawyer groups went into high gear creating an alibi about it.

[smellyman]

reminds me of the this:

The Office (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yyKrS8jwSY)

[standingwave]

The guy who was driving should sue her for hitting his car.That's been done before:


Driver who killed teen sues for damage to car

MADRID, Spain - A speeding motorist who killed a teenage cyclist is suing the boy's parents over damage to his luxury car, the government says.

Enaitz Iriondo, 17, died instantly in August 2004 when businessman Tomas Delgado's Audi A8 crashed into him at 100 mph near Haro in northern Spain, an Interior Ministry traffic report said. The speed limit was 55 mph.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22844937/

[Phrea]

Smart . . .

[isaacj87]

Wow.

There's just one fallacy. She claims that the Blackberry version of Google Maps did not specify whether or not they were walking directions or by car, but I have a Blackberry. I have Google Maps. And when I enter directions, it specifically asks me whether it's for a car or walking and I don't think there's any way to get around that...

[Legendary_Bibo]

Wow.

There's just one fallacy. She claims that the Blackberry version of Google Maps did not specify whether or not they were walking directions or by car, but I have a Blackberry. I have Google Maps. And when I enter directions, it specifically asks me whether it's for a car or walking and I don't think there's any way to get around that...

She did say she was walking. Her legit case (apparently) was that the warning from google that normally shows up about how google maps isn't 100% accurate doesn't show up on her blackberry.

[isaacj87]

She did say she was walking. Her legit case (apparently) was that the warning from google that normally shows up about how google maps isn't 100% accurate doesn't show up on her blackberry.

Ah. I mispoke. So, essentially, she's angry at Google for taking onto a highway with no sidewalk? It's still pretty ridiculous. Some serious questions should be raised about our justice system if they side with her on this one. I'm still baffled about the hot coffee/McDonald's incident.

[exodus_]

I can confirm that Google Maps for BlackBerry does not show the warning. I googled walking direction from my city to one about 20KM away, it directs me to walk along a highway for almost 18.5KM that has no sidewalks, and would be downright dangerous to walk with NO warnings at all.

[aysiu]

It is, just never enforced.
It is in the San Francisco Bay Area.

[Legendary_Bibo]

I can confirm that Google Maps for BlackBerry does not show the warning. I googled walking direction from my city to one about 20KM away, it directs me to walk along a highway for almost 18.5KM that has no sidewalks, and would be downright dangerous to walk with NO warnings at all.

I often wonder at what point in our evolution did we begin to lose the ability to think. I'm assuming you know that a large metal object going Vroom! Vroom! and going very fast, and is large is probably not a good idea to get in front of especially on a frickin HIGHWAY!!

I think that until Google Maps is complete, everyone with a low IQ that manages to use the computer to get to google maps needs to escorted by a paid for babysitter from Google that will hold that persons hand and walk them everywhere they go and teach them not to walk in front of traffic.

[exodus_]

I often wonder at what point in our evolution did we begin to lose the ability to think. I'm assuming you know that a large metal object going Vroom! Vroom! and going very fast, and is large is probably not a good idea to get in front of especially on a frickin HIGHWAY!!



Whatever do you mean? I think walking down a highway with cars coming at me is a GREAT idea! Hell, now that I think about it, sticking metal objects into my electrical outlets seems like a dandy idea, too!

/sarcasm

[Legendary_Bibo]

Whatever do you mean? I think walking down a highway with cars coming at me is a GREAT idea! Hell, now that I think about it, sticking metal objects into my electrical outlets seems like a dandy idea, too!

/sarcasm

yes to us it sounds like common sense and funny if someone were to do it, but unfortunately stupid stuff like this actually does happen.

[Windows Nerd]

sudo apt-get tack-hammer-for-moron
Moron found! "sudo darwinism -remove" will take care of it.

[scouser73]

There's no sense of taking responsibility anymore, it's a culture of blame & sue. If she chose to follow the directions that took her onto a motorway and she followed that to the letter then it's she who is at fault, not Google Maps.

[ronnielsen1]

She must be blind. Don't people look left and right before crossing.

Not around here. The college kids usually walk right across the highway texting on their phones

[Spike-X]

I'm still struggling to figure out how stupid people getting run over by cars is a bad thing.

[murderslastcrow]

Spike-X, in modern society we can afford to let these animals survive, hoping they'll have some skill that compensates for it. If you think about it, without the human need for communication and the efficiency the internet gives to our work through faster and decentralized communication, sitting in front of a box of plastic, glass, and metal makes very little practical sense. Walking to some other place which has, say, food despite the fact that there is a highway in the way, makes a bit more sense.

Making a building for people to whine and steal money from someone else to gain gratification, and buy some more food later on, seems quite ill-conceived.

[julio_cortez]

A fine example of Darwinism at its finest.
If darwinism had worked the way it was supposed to, she wouldn't have been here looking for a refund.

Anyway, the same thing happens here on a freeway near where I live: I don't know how you class roads in the US, but it was a "type C" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_carriageway) road (single carriageway) here in Italy until no long ago, and now after long works is a "type B" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeway) road (dual carriageways, no toll) with ramps and so on.

Well, on that road, even if bicycles are expressely not allowed to travel anymore, I always see lots of cyclists.
And they also shout at you if you horn them or ask for way -_-'

I wonder where Darwin is, when he's needed :(

[Legendary_Bibo]

If darwinism had worked the way it was supposed to, she wouldn't have been here looking for a refund.

Anyway, the same thing happens here on a freeway near where I live: I don't know how you class roads in the US, but it was a "type C" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_carriageway) road (single carriageway) here in Italy until no long ago, and now after long works is a "type B" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeway) road (dual carriageways, no toll) with ramps and so on.

Well, on that road, even if bicycles are expressely not allowed to travel anymore, I always see lots of cyclists.
And they also shout at you if you horn them or ask for way -_-'

I wonder where Darwin is, when he's needed :(

A road in Europe is measured by two horses butts (I was taught this by a math teacher), and it america it's determined by the size of two Americans butts...Zing! :D
We classify them as single lane, double lane, and I've seen some go up to 6 lanes. I'm not sure if we have some sort of classification besides being roads, highways, and freeways.

[sandyd]

They lost it

I should sue

Yay

I could be rich . no wait

ummm

I could sue

lolz

[lisati]

Whatever do you mean? I think walking down a highway with cars coming at me is a GREAT idea! Hell, now that I think about it, sticking metal objects into my electrical outlets seems like a dandy idea, too!

/sarcasm
Tried that once when I was little. It was simultaneously shocking and electrifying, and I learned not to do that again in too much of a hurry.

[Legendary_Bibo]

Tried that once when I was little. It was simultaneously shocking and electrifying, and I learned not to do that again in too much of a hurry.
do you think by getting hit by a car she won't walk out in traffic again?

[Swagman]

Actually, unless there are specific laws prohibiting pedestrians from walking aside the road then it is the car drivers fault.

Yes you read that right.

The road (unless it's a freeway/motorway or has an in force bylaw) is designated as a Public Highway

Guess what "Public" means.

She still shouldn't be suing Google though.

[whiskeylover]

Breaking News - Woman Sues Toilet Maker Because Her Poop Makes the Water Splash on Her A$$.

[McRat]

I can confirm that Google Maps for BlackBerry does not show the warning. I googled walking direction from my city to one about 20KM away, it directs me to walk along a highway for almost 18.5KM that has no sidewalks, and would be downright dangerous to walk with NO warnings at all.

But why should there be warnings on maps? Traffic dangers are dynamic and change constantly. You CAN'T have complete warnings.


Why should we always have to have "Stupid Warnings" on everything? It trivializes serious warnings.

Nearly anything you can buy now has pages and pages of warnings which often exceed the actual instructions. Most the warnings are so stupid, that anyone who is smart enough to read is already protected from them by native IQ.

You can never make anything idiot-proof. They are developing bigger idiots all the time, and technology cannot keep up. This article is proof.

[samjh]

Dunno.

If she had third degree burns, (bleeding burns) and skin grafts, I can't imagine why a lawyer would settle for $20k. His fee will normally be about 40% + costs, or about 70% of the settlement. No way would $6k cover those kinds of bills.

Pretty sure the lawyers lied about a lot of the damages, which is normal. Lawyers seldom get in trouble for lying.

Like I said, this case was used as a Poster Child for tort reform, so all the Trial Lawyer groups went into high gear creating an alibi about it.

A lawyer would settle for $20k if that's what the client wants. Most negligence claims are settled out of court, with fairly small payouts. I don't know about American lawyers, but they must work pretty weird if a "normal" fee is 40% + costs. Seems a little too high.

Lawyers cannot just "lie" about damages either, as damages have to be proven. This means hospital invoices and proof of payment, along with other supporting evidence (letter from doctor, proof of employment and income, proof of loss of income, indepedent medical examination, etc). And I haven't come across any lawyer yet who will deliberately lie for their client. It's the client who makes up the BS, and the lawyers who have to try to deal with that by trying as best as possible to stick to provable facts and away from the unprovable rubbish. The risk of being outed for professional misconduct is just too high.

[McRat]

A lawyer would settle for $20k if that's what the client wants. Most negligence claims are settled out of court, with fairly small payouts. I don't know about American lawyers, but they must work pretty weird if a "normal" fee is 40% + costs. Seems a little too high.

Lawyers cannot just "lie" about damages either, as damages have to be proven. This means hospital invoices and proof of payment, along with other supporting evidence (letter from doctor, proof of employment and income, proof of loss of income, indepedent medical examination, etc). And I haven't come across any lawyer yet who will deliberately lie for their client. It's the client who makes up the BS, and the lawyers who have to try to deal with that by trying as best as possible to stick to provable facts and away from the unprovable rubbish. The risk of being outed for professional misconduct is just too high.


Naw, in America, you can tell if a lawyer is lying by checking his pulse. If there isn't one, he's stopped lying.

In some cases in the US, the lawyer gets over 90% of the settlement. They cheat their clients as well. 40% is normal, I've never heard it go lower, only higher. I hired an attorney for a traffic accident once, and he got 80% of the car repairs and medical bills. Luckily he lied about the damages so I did get enough to fix the car.

If a lawyer "lies", they are just representing their client's side of the story. I'm not sure if I've ever heard of a lawyer in the US who has been disbarred for lying about damages. I doubt if it's happened. A very prominent lawyer (F Lee Bailey? Dunno) stole millions of dollars out of his client's account (A Columbian Drug Lord) and did not get disbarred.

It's way out of control in the US, but Lawyers are in charge of Legal Reform. HAHAHAHA!!!!! What a scam...

[sydbat]

A lawyer would settle for $20k if that's what the client wants. Most negligence claims are settled out of court, with fairly small payouts. I don't know about American lawyers, but they must work pretty weird if a "normal" fee is 40% + costs. Seems a little too high.

Lawyers cannot just "lie" about damages either, as damages have to be proven. This means hospital invoices and proof of payment, along with other supporting evidence (letter from doctor, proof of employment and income, proof of loss of income, indepedent medical examination, etc). And I haven't come across any lawyer yet who will deliberately lie for their client. It's the client who makes up the BS, and the lawyers who have to try to deal with that by trying as best as possible to stick to provable facts and away from the unprovable rubbish. The risk of being outed for professional misconduct is just too high.Yes, it is like this in the US. Lying, as it were, is called "making the better argument". In civil cases (like the McDonald's one) you do not have to have actual scientific evidence at all, just the better argument. In criminal cases, however, there is a definite burden of proof.

The funny thing about what I just wrote, I live in Canada and understand the US system better than many Americans. Unfortunately, many (most?) Canadians think that our courts system is the same as the US one. Friggin TV...

[McRat]

What this lawsuit will do, is make maps harder to get and be more expensive.

Maps have NEVER been accurate. Hear that? Never. Not in the last 4,000 years.

Because the landscape changes, and map makers aren't infallible, they are humans like us.

[pricetech]

Naw, in America, you can tell if a lawyer is lying by checking his pulse. If there isn't one, he's stopped lying.

Are you sure about that ??

[McRat]

Are you sure about that ??

Sure, that is intended to be satire; a humorous exaggeration.

I hired several attorneys over the years, been an expert witness in technology trials, and have paid tens of thousands in legal fees. I used to believe lawyers were here to protect the legal system. I got older and wiser.

As a profession, it is perhaps the least ethical, and with the lowest average competency.

Think about this case -

"The driver is to blame because he didn't yield right-of-way."

"The mapmaker is to blame because the road didn't give pedestrians right-of-way."

Uh? Which is it? Is the attorney incompetent, or just lying?

[Frak]

Tried that once when I was little. It was simultaneously shocking and electrifying, and I learned not to do that again in too much of a hurry.
I did that too. Man those baby-proof socket covers are useless.

[bapoumba]

Please remember not to make a single user case regarding a profession into a global assessment.

[sydbat]

Please remember not to make a single user case regarding a profession into a global assessment.Awwwww...why not...you never let us have any fun...

[bapoumba]

Awwwww...why not...you never let us have any fun...
No, absolutely no fun is allowed, but please keep that between us :p

[Mark Phelps]

In response to one of the questions, can think of two reasons why a lawyer might take this case ...

First, if they are being paid up front, typical costs of going to trial exceed $30K. So, even if they lose, the lawyer still gets their money up front.

Second, there's always the chance (and maybe a GOOD one, depending on where the trial is held), that the jury will consist of 12 greedy idiots -- who are willing to award a huge sum of money because (1) they are stupid, and (2) they will lay the groundwork for others making huge sums of money in the future -- enhancing their own chances of getting rich by being stupid.

[Frak]

No, absolutely no fun is allowed, but please keep that between us :p
Knew it.

[bob-linux-user]

@frak...

Jaywalking is definitely prosecuted in the USA. An acquaintance of mine was jaywalking and had her leg broken when hit by a car. I would have thought that would have been punishment enough but she was fined as well.

[KiwiNZ]

Remember Lawyers are people to

No wait , no they are

yes

Lawyers are people to you know

[exodus_]

But why should there be warnings on maps? Traffic dangers are dynamic and change constantly. You CAN'T have complete warnings.


Why should we always have to have "Stupid Warnings" on everything? It trivializes serious warnings.

Nearly anything you can buy now has pages and pages of warnings which often exceed the actual instructions. Most the warnings are so stupid, that anyone who is smart enough to read is already protected from them by native IQ.

You can never make anything idiot-proof. They are developing bigger idiots all the time, and technology cannot keep up. This article is proof.

I agree with you to a point, because I have enough common sense to not walk down a highway to the next town over, and if I HAD to walk there there are far less busy roads. Some people however don't have much common sense, and would just blindly walk wherever the application TOLD them to because they implicitly trust what the computer is telling them. I implicitly do NOT trust all the magic devices have to say to me ;)

Having a simple warning for the benefit of the common-sense challenged is in the best interest of the company. This will make it harder to sue them or be held liable if they warned you that it's potentially unsafe.

[sdowney717]

She must be blind. Don't people look left and right before crossing.

its just a money scam. people today will deliberately injure themselves, put themselves at risk in some fashion and file lawsuits.

[Rasa1111]

common sense is all but common.
the sad truth is,
the majority of people are just plain stupid.
not their faults of course.. {ok, some it is}
but stupid non the less. lol
whether trying to scam, or not..
it's all stupidity.
blame those in power.
(yes, it's a conspiracy). lol :p

[timzak]

So this is the next generation of frivolous lawsuits, following the ones where people followed their GPS's into walls, buildings, rivers, and piles of snow: "But the GPS told me to drive there!" is now "But Google Maps told me to walk there!". Lemmings, anyone? Or more appropriately, Pingus, anyone? :-)

[lisati]

do you think by getting hit by a car she won't walk out in traffic again?

Oops my bad. I was thinking more of the bit about sticking metal things into an electrical outlet. (And I just remembered that Mrs Lisati got hit by a car once. Thankfully it was going slowly. It wasn't much fun to watch.)

[Legendary_Bibo]

Oops my bad. I was thinking more of the bit about sticking metal things into an electrical outlet. (And I just remembered that Mrs Lisati got hit by a car once. Thankfully it was going slowly. It wasn't much fun to watch.)

yep I've been there. Now my hips, lower back, and knees are messed up for life :D
It was some teen driver girl who drove off while I lied on the hot Arizona summer asphalt. She was texting too. Perhaps by hurting someone you'll stop a bad habit?

[silkworm2.5]

I'm gonna sue volition inc because when I tried to act out there insurance fraud activity in saints row 2 I didn't get thousands of pounds for every bit of pain I felt. Plus they don't say clearly, don't go out into the highway and see how far a big rig truck can throw you!

Seriously though, jokes aside there is a serious problem with stupid lawsuits.
A man sued two famous magicians because their tricks defied the laws of physics and so were using godly powers. And god gave no permission to them in writing to use his powers and so as therefore theft.:P

And how about the woman who sued the local network for making wrong weather-predictions, causing her to catch a cold? She supposedly won the trial. There's also a case about the woman who sued a cinema 'cause she suffered from emotional distress after watching a horror movie. ](*,)

A convicted bank robber on parole entered a bank, went up to the teller, and said, "Give me the money. I've got a bomb." The bank teller did as instructed, except that hidden in the rolls of money turned over to the robber was an anti-robbery device that released tear gas. The device functioned as intended .. and the robber sued the bank. :(

Check out this link for more:
http://lawsuit.no/archive.html :guitar:

[pricetech]

Sure, that is intended to be satire; a humorous exaggeration.

I thought even dead ones lied. Like politicians.

[Windows Nerd]

But why should there be warnings on maps? Traffic dangers are dynamic and change constantly. You CAN'T have complete warnings.


Why should we always have to have "Stupid Warnings" on everything? It trivializes serious warnings.

Nearly anything you can buy now has pages and pages of warnings which often exceed the actual instructions. Most the warnings are so stupid, that anyone who is smart enough to read is already protected from them by native IQ.

You can never make anything idiot-proof. They are developing bigger idiots all the time, and technology cannot keep up. This article is proof.
Which brings us to a quote by Richard Cook:

“Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot- proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.”

[Frak]

Which brings us to a quote by Richard Cook:

“Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot- proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.”
I won't lie, I did rofl pretty hard when I read that.

[NCLI]

Seems like it was dark when the woman wandered onto the highway... So, she chose to take a long walk, in the middle of the night, with no flashlight, only relying on a GPS...

I wonder if the lawyer really thought it would help her case to release these facts? xD

[CarpKing]

As mentioned earlier by a few, it is legal to walk along most roadways, including highways. The exception is things like Interstates where pedestrian traffic is specifically disallowed. Google's directions were probably not in error.

I don't know the specifics of this case, but if it was dark she should have worn reflectors, and she should have stuck to the left side of the road, not wandered out into the middle (if she was on the side when hit, she was probably doing nothing wrong and the driver is at fault for sure). Maybe she was just never taught how to walk on a road that doesn't have sidewalks?