I think pretty much every time you get walking directions, you get the following disclaimer:

Walking directions are in beta.
Use caution – This route may be missing sidewalks or pedestrian paths.

I can't believe any lawyer would even take this case.
Um, guess she didn't read the disclaimer in the Google walking directions - which mention that the route plotted may have missing sidewalks or other hazzards and that the walker should use their best judgement.
@3: DERP, that is. Sorry.
Damn, naturally it would happen in a backward hick Red State....
This is why I wish I was a judge. I'd really like to laugh in her face before I threw the case out.
Yep, this lawsuit's a loser. And so is she.
this has been on every site on the internet for like a week now was this really necessary
She should sue her mother for giving birth to a douchebag.

Utah may be a backwards, red-state - but Park City is FAR from the usual Utah. This accident happened during Sundance and if I'm not mistaken - the report I saw earlier today, said this lady is from L.A.

When NY and Hollywood take over the snowy, steep and narrow roads of Park City every January, all hell breaks loose. It's a beautiful and very small ski-town with an abundance of taxis during the festival. This broad was probably drunk and walking in the middle of a dark snow covered road. It doesn't take a lot of critical thinking to figure out that walking down these roads (Google Maps or not) will be treacherous. I hope she loses and is shamed into never coming back to PC.
This is why Google also has street view, which lets you see if the street has sidewalks. I've used it frequently, researching walking routes in notorious sidewalk-less hellholes.
Holding them responsible for traffic accidents actually makes more sense than believing Google has the power to fix human rights abuse in China.
The lawyer must have some kind of good argument as to why the disclaimer does not protect Google legally. At least, you would hope so.
Car navigators are no better. I was using my sister's GPS on Long Island and it kept routing me into dead end streets, or it would say right turn when there was none.
I thought everyone knows by now that MapQuest and Google Maps aren't always accurate. Lord knows how often they tell me to drive right into the Spokane River.
You know, every time I saw those warnings on Google Maps (Walking Directions are in beta, there may not be sidewalks, you might have to walk some other way, blah blah) I always rolled my eyes a little bit and thought Google was being silly. "Duh," I thought to myself.

It seems I was mistaken.
Perhaps the warning does not appear the same in Google Maps for the Blackberry. I don't know because I never looked for walking directions when I had a Blackberry, but I do know that the warning is not the same in the version of Google Maps on my Droid. It does still have a warning, but it just says "Walking directions (beta): use caution". The fact that there might not be sidewalks, and that you may need to take an alternate route, is not mentioned.

I'm not saying the woman in question isn't still totally an idiot, and I really hate litigiousness, but if the disclaimer isn't as specific on the Blackberry version as it is on the online version then I can see the merits of the legal argument. While I don't personally see the need for the warning at all, becuase people who are able to look up directions using Google maps (on a phone no less) should be at least smart enough to know that if there are not sidewalks your chances of getting hit by a car dramatically increase, I certainly think that the need for that specific warning is far greater than the need for one warning people that the coffee they are about to drink is hot and yet that was a winning lawsuit. The law may very well be on her side here.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.