Discussion in 'Up to the Minute' started by STEADFAST, Jun 2, 2010.
She's got to be kidding! :sheesh:
I wonder if this was before or after Google added this little disclaimer:
"Walking directions are in beta.
Use caution – This route may be missing sidewalks or pedestrian paths."
what would she have done prior to Google - sue the makers of a paper map she bought at a variety store?
what's next, sue random people on the street for sending you left instead of right?
it should be thrown out of court as frivolous and Google should sue her for causing damage to their reputation and then she should be ordered to pay restitution to the taxpayers
I wouldn't argue with a criminal charge of mischief either
yeah, I know I'm dreaming ...
However did people manage to get anywhere safely before there was Google to ask if it's safe to cross the street? Right, they had to look.
I'm not sure there will ever be an internet reference source that will tell us accurately and in an up-to-date manner if it's safe to cross the street or if we will be
like this lady was.
Hey, I didn't sue when they told me to swim across the Pacific to Hawaii.
People are ridiculous.
"Jeeves", my GPS unit directed me to turn left at an intersection that would have sent me down a one way street....did I listen to him? Noooooooo!
*There is no shortage of stupid!
New Google directions for those who disregard personal saftey, common sense and or logic:
Take baby steps to the left, spin 2 times quickly
bend down and pick up your sign!
From the link in the OP:
Rosenberg is seeking compensation for medical bills, plus more for lost wages and punitive damages. The lawsuit provided no other information about the woman, who has been misidentified online as a Los Angeles publicist by the same name.
Young said the woman is a native of Northridge in her mid-20s and is unemployed. No phone listing could be found for her.
How has she lost wages if she is unemployed?:waitasec:
Oh, right, she was just about to apply for (and get) that great job that pays, like, $250K/year! Yeah, that's the ticket!
Might I suggest Ms. Rosenburg get her eyes off her lovely phone and all its little apps and simply watch where she walk?
When I heard this story this morning I choked on my coffee. I haven't been so frustrated by a frivolous lawsuit since the McDonald's / coffee spilling lady.
When will we all grow up and accept that sometimes, accidents are just that - accidents. With no one to blame (except maybe ourselves) when something doesn't go our way.
No wonder half the world thinks Americans are stupid. Sheesh
Maybe her premise is that she was on her way to an interview that she was SURE to ace. lol. Either that or unemployment just ran out and some sheister actually convinced her she had a case.
This event happened close to my house. When I read this story disbelief washed over me.
Let me clear up a misconception even though it is off topic so forgive me.
The "McDonalds Coffee" lawsuit does seem frivolous until the facts are known.
Read about it here. After I learned the facts it totally changed my mind on the case.
This Google lawsuit however . . . Can't imagine anything coming out that would change my mind. Let's keep our fingers crossed that it gets thrown out.
Exactly on the McDonald's coffee lawsuit. The law is a clear one and the establishment in question had been warned in writing twice before.
The Google suit is a frivilous one and damages the claims of those who legitimately have fears that the various Google features like Street View are violations of rights to privacy.
lol, Thanks Tricia, our resident paralegal here at the office just schooled me on the McD's case. I stand corrected. Given the history of complaints and the "company decision" that to pay nuisance lawsuits would be cheaper than replacing equipment to end the problem, that does indeed change my perspective on that particular case.
Still don't see where this lady has a case against google tho, their disclaimer is cleary present for all to read. My opinion stands on that one.
If she is going to sue for every stupid decision that she herself makes, then why doesn't she just sue the city for not making every area pedestrian-friendly? I mean if you are going to try and milk someone for cash, at least do something productive with it.
Oh wait, the city is likely broke and google is grossing bazillions...that explains her decision on who to sue. Duh, my bad.
I don't listen to anyone half the time and the other half I didn't know that I shouldn't of.
If someone (google map) told me to jump off a cliff, I wouldn't do it even though (google is my friend). I know cause I was asked that question several times growing up.
This is why america is the way it is! We are a sue happy country and this is why malpractice costs are so high!
This is a RIDICULOUS suit, and it should be thrown out, and on top of it, she should be held liable for all damage the lawsuit costs google, as well as all their court costs and related fees!
I've seen the facts the McDonald's coffee lawsuit and I am still not impressed.
It does not seem to me that sticking a cup of hot coffee in between ones legs is a particularly smart thing to do, no matter which way I look at it.
Comparative Fault - even if the Plaintiff is somewhat at fault, in most jurisdictions they can still recover. They just have to sort out what percentage at fault the defendant is and apportion the damages accordingly.
Even if you are negligent in resting a hot coffee cup in your lap; the negligence of McDonalds still exists and they must pay. That case was pretty legit once you see how bad the burns were.
In this case I can't see any fault on the part of Google. She has the duty to keep herself safe and apparently she breached that duty by not acting with reason under the circumstances.
She should lose!!!!
Oh and also there is the superseding cause of the speeding car...that could be found to be the actual and proximate cause of her injuries and take Google off the hook right there.
Yet another sue happy person! These type of people need to get a life!!
Separate names with a comma.