08172017Headline:

New York City, New York

HomeNew YorkNew York City

Email Guest Author
Guest Author
Guest Author
Contributor •

Woman Sues Google after She is Hit by Car While Following Google Maps

5 comments

A woman has filed a suit against Google after a car hit her while she was following walking directions provided by Google Maps.

Lauren Rosenberg, of Los Angeles, CA, used the Google Maps site on her Blackberry wireless device for walking directions from Daly Street, Park City, UT to Prospector Avenue, Park City, UT on January 19, 2009. As she traveled the Google Maps route on foot, a car struck and injured her.

According to the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court in Utah by Rosenberg’s attorney, Allen K. Young of Young, Kester & Petro in Provo, UT, the Google Maps directed Rosenberg to travel on rural highway Deer Valley Drive (State Route 224), a street unsafe for pedestrians because it has no sidewalks and vehicles travel at a high rate of speed.

“As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant Google’s careless, reckless, and negligent providing of unsafe directions, Plaintiff Lauren Rosenberg was led onto a dangerous highway, and was thereby stricken by a motor vehicle, causing her to suffer severe permanent physical, emotional, and mental injuries, including pain and suffering, and causing her to incur medical expenses in amounts in excess of $100,000.00,” the complaint states.

Rosenberg claims Google had a duty to exercise reasonable care in providing safe directions to patrons and failed to warn her of known dangers along the route.

When using Google Maps for walking directions on a computer, the site warns that, “Walking directions are in beta. Use caution – This route may be missing sidewalks or pedestrian paths.” However, when viewed on a PDA or phone, Google Maps gives no such warning.

Rosenberg is also suing the driver of the vehicle, Patrick Harwood, of Salt Lake County, UT, claiming he failed to keep a proper look out, failed to keep proper control and driving in excess of reasonable speed.

She seeks to recover damages in an amount to be proven at trial, including the cost of past and future medical expenses, loss of earnings and diminished earning capacity.

5 Comments

Have an opinion about this post? Please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

  1. Jeff says:
    up arrow

    If she gets one red cent, there is no justice. What an idiot.

  2. JJ says:
    up arrow

    What kind of a moron walks on a highway for Pete’s sake?! Does she not have any common sense or is she just as stupid as a bag of sand with holes in it? People like this make me want to cry.

  3. v says:
    up arrow

    This is just like the lady who sued McDonald’s because she got burned by hot coffee and they didn’t tell her the coffee was hot!! Totally ridiculous!! If you can’t use your common sense then you need professional help!! There isn’t that much money in the world!! What idiots!!

  4. up arrow

    @v–

    Actually, the “Hot Coffee” case is a perfect example of a NON-frivolous lawsuit. You should learn the facts some time, rather than accepting the false argument that there is any “crisis” of frivolous lawsuits (a false theory propounded by, you guessed it, corporate interests). Here’s a place to start http://cleveland.injuryboard.com/automobile-accidents/the-mcdonalds-hot-coffee-case.aspx?googleid=281136. Be sure to check out the video at the end.

    Now, I don’t have anything against corporate interests, per se–I just want corporations to be accountable for their actions. Tort deform, at its roots, is simply an attempt to avoid liability. And that’s wrong. http://mobile.injuryboard.com/miscellaneous/tort-reform-is-about-juries-not-lawyers.aspx?googleid=281940