🚀 go-pugleaf

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_15199273

Apparently, this lady wanted to walk from where a trailer rental place
to the Park Regency Hotel (yes, I checked myself with Google Maps
since the news article kindly gave her exact departure and destination
addresses) in Park City, UT.   Part of the "shortest route" took her
via a busy rural state highway with "no pedestrian sidewalks."  While
walking there, she was struck and injured by an allegedly negligent
motorist.   She then sued both the motorist, and Google.  Google?

At first I thought, what's she talking about?   Directions are
directions are directions.   All they tell you is the shortest route
from point A to point B.  Then, when I actually went to plot her route
on Google Maps, I saw that Google offers you the choice of directions
optimized for driving, walking, bicycling, or public transit.

So, I continued to process the request for "walking" directions from A
to B.   The default view in my Google window shows an actual aerial
photo view (easily toggled to a map view).   By enlarging (zooming in)
the view, ne can clearly see that the roadway in question runs thru
undeveloped scrubland (low bushes and underbrush) for about a mile, is
4 lanes wide, and has what appears to be a paved shoulder as well as
an adjacent (non-paved) dirt outer shoulder that can also be walked
upon, along both sides of the roadway.  Google Maps also offered a
choice between 3 different routings, and gave the estimated walking
time for each, which varied by only a minute or two.   Plaintiff chose
the shortest one, which Google said would take her 33 minutes,
although the longest suggested route, along Park Avenue running
through town instead of along the edge of town, was only 0.1 miles
longer and would take 34 minutes.

So, should Google be liable if they direct you to drive your car into
a river where a bridge is supposed to be, but isn't?   (Somebody did
that in Holland IIRC, a few years ago, at night, using GPS.   A shame,
too, as they were driving a brand new Mercedes.)  If there is a
pothole or a broken sidewalk or some other dangerous condition on the
route Google selects for you to walk, should they be liable for that
too?   How much responsibility should the traveler take for his or her
own choice of route, based on all the known information?   And even
after choosing a route, who is responsible to alert or warn the
traveler of hazards that might be encountered?

In other words, what tort duty to avoid injury, if any, does Google
have toward people who use their free mapping service to obtain
directions and then get injured due to dangerous conditions they
encounter along the way?   Discuss.