On 1 June 2010 09:23, Nakor <[email protected]> wrote: > On 5/31/2010 4:36 PM, John Smith wrote: > > Her lawyers claim Google is liable because it did not warn her > that the route would not offer a safe place for a pedestrian to walk. > > > Did Google add their notice after the fact? > > "*Walking directions are in beta.* Use caution – This route may be missing > sidewalks or pedestrian paths." >
Here's a case from NZ where something similar happened that didn't lead to injury. Until this article was posted, Google Maps directed people through Wellington's bus tunnel, a 1 way tunnel which barely has enough width for buses to travel through. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3552037/Google-maps-off-course-with-walk-through-bus-tunnel At that incident Goolge's response was: Google spokeswoman Annie Baxter said the walking directions search function in Google Maps was still at an experimental phase. "We clearly advise people to use caution as routes might be missing footpaths or pedestrian-friendly paths." This implies that they they're undertaking a responsibility to notify people when routes are generated. I guess if the BlackBerry version doesn't include the disclaimer, there's an argument to say that Google didn't meet its (self-imposed?) duty of care to the consumers. Still, even if they breached the duty of care, the injured woman will still need to establish that the breach was a cause of her injury. Tim.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
