I'm actually at odds at what's Google responsible for exactly. Google isn't paid by the county to provide this service nor Google Maps is a paid service.

My first thought was it's the county's fault.

So what? Google offers the service as instructions for how to get somewhere. Google and these other tech companies hide behind excuses that claim these systems are so complex and scaled that they can't possibly be responsible for when they're wrong. But it is they, as in Google, that built, offer, market, and implicitly claim it all works, not the people. Then they cowardly bury in the terms and conditions that it can't be trusted.

I am all for tech companies being held liable for what they market. Especially here, because at the end of the day, Google doesn't even care about providing you directions They just want your data that they can resell. But that's not how they market Google Maps.

I also think the county should be responsible, but that is in addition.

Keep in mind, those protections are pretty standard for software in general.

Most of the open source ecosystem would evaporate immediately if "SOFTWARE PROVIDED AS-IS" wasn't a legally-enforceable culpability abrogation.

It's different when you're a corporation that makes $300 million annually, plasters the service all over ads and commercials, and buries the "as-is" in however many pages of terms and conditions that constantly update, all the while making money off of the "customer".

No it is not. Print a map on a piece of paper. You follow it off a cliff. In what world is that the map makers fault?

That isn't what happened.

Morally yes, but not legally.

I'm not sure. The analogy was downloading any old open source software with the as-is disclaimer vs Google saying their map system gives you live, up to date, directions and maps but then buries in terms and conditions a claim that they're not responsible.

If Google marketed Maps as "for information only", then that would be different.

I mean, it's point 3 in the terms of service. The bold text is Actual Conditions; Assumption of Risk.

I don't think we can call that "buried" unless we're operating under the legal theory that nobody is held accountable to terms and conditions at all anymore.

Eh?

If I print a map and sell it showing a bridge. Then later the bridge washes out in a flood, how in any way would the map maker be responsible if you're aware enough not to drive off a cliff. This case has nothing to do with any technology involved.

Counties, in general under law, are excluded from most of these kinds of liabilities in most states. Probably why the family is going after Google, County is a dead end.

What if I told you about the bridge collapse and then you reprinted the maps, but left the collapsed bridge on there?

That is what the lawsuit is claiming. I still don't think Google is at any fault in this scenario, but it is a little surprising that the route still shows after several years of the bridge being out (and multiple reports to Google about it.)

When it's on paper, it's very clear that the information is not live updated. Also, that piece of paper wouldn't be giving instructions. The level of alertness and the expectations would be calibrated accordingly.

In the case of Google Maps, the thing claims live data and gives you authoritative instructions like "turn left".

People have tendency to follow instructions and trust the computer, so if the computer says something people try their best to do it. Combine that with the illusion of live data, there you have a disaster waiting to happen. After all, the device that knows how much traffic is there at this very moment at particular location must also know if there's a bridge or not, right?

There can be multiple parties responsible, the county looks like definitely responsible(or not, if it's not an infra where they are responsible to maintain?) but Google can be too.

Google Maps is not a free product at all, it's a commercial product provided for free as part of an ad business. It's free as the free soda with the hamburger.

More customer support is needed. Article says bridge collapsed 9 years ago and people used the suggest edit feature and Google ignored it. Even if Google is not fully responsible for a person driving off a cliff, they are definitely negligent.