Family Sues Google for Father’s Death | Oct 2023
A Collapsed Bridge and a Father’s Death
According to the article, Google has been sued by the family of a North Carolina man claiming the company’s Maps application last year led him to drive off a collapsed bridge and fall about 20 feet to his death.
Philip Paxson was following Google Maps directions while driving home late at night in September 2022 from his daughter’s 9th birthday party when the navigation system directed him to go over an unmarked and unbarricaded bridge that had collapsed years prior, the suit filed states.
Paxson drove off the unbarricaded edge of the bridge in Hickory, North Carolina, and drowned, the suit says.
Expressed Concerns
The lawsuit claims neighbors had expressed concern Google Maps had led drivers over the bridge, which allegedly has not been repaired since its partial collapse in 2013.
“For years before this tragedy, Hickory residents asked for the road to be fixed or properly barricaded before someone was hurt or killed. Their demands went unanswered,” Paxson family attorney Robert Zimmerman said in a statement. “We’ve discovered that Google Maps misdirected motorists like Mr. Paxson onto this collapsed road for years, despite receiving complaints from the public demanding that Google fix its map and directions to mark the road as CLOSED.”
Though residents notified Google Maps of the hazardous bridge, the application continued to navigate drivers over it, claims the suit, which includes a report made to Google Maps by a woman asking it to update its navigation system.
“You are not able to cross this road. GPS sends people down here, which is especially dangerous for emergency vehicles,” reads the report sent to Google Maps. “Please update this map so GPS is accurate.”
The woman appears to have gotten an email autoreply from Google Maps thanking her for the report, the court filing shows: “Your suggestion is being reviewed. Thanks for sharing your knowledge. We’ll let you know once the changes are published,” it states.
The Surviving Family and The Lawsuit
Besides Google, the family is suing its parent company, Alphabet, and two local companies it claims were responsible for maintaining the land and bridge, along with proper barricades and warning signs, and failed to repair the bridge or put up barricades and hazard warnings. The suit claims negligence and willful and wanton conduct by the companies and seeks an unspecified amount in punitive damages.
Google has “the deepest sympathies for the Paxson family,” it told the media in a statement. “Our goal is to provide accurate routing information in maps, and we are reviewing this lawsuit.”
Paxson is survived by his wife, Alicia, and the couple’s two daughters, ages 9 and 7, the suit says. The family wants to “make sure our voices are heard,” Alicia Paxson said in a statement shared by her attorneys.
“My daughters spent their first Father’s Day without their Dad. They should have been celebrating and spending time with Philip, who devoted his life to his family. Instead, they had to look across the dinner table and see an empty chair,” the wife said.
“Our girls ask how and why their daddy died, and I’m at a loss for words they can understand because, as an adult, I still can’t understand how those responsible for the GPS directions, and the bridge, could have acted with so little regard for human life,” Paxson said.
“No one should ever lose a loved one this way.”
“Like so many motorists, Philip put his trust in Google Maps to safely guide him home from the children’s birthday party,” family attorney Larry Bendesky said in a statement. “His trust in Google Maps, and the failure of the road and bridge-keepers to do their jobs, cost him his life.”
Discussion Questions
1. Define negligence.
Negligence is the failure to do what a reasonable person would do under the same or similar circumstances. To establish negligence, the plaintiff(s) must prove, by the greater weight (a preponderance) of the evidence that:
- The defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care;
- The defendant breached the duty of care;
- The defendant caused the plaintiff harm; and
- The plaintiff sustained damages (physical and/or economic) as a result.
2. In your reasoned opinion, what facts included in the article are particularly important in assessing Google’s negligence in this case?
This is an opinion question, so student responses may vary. In your author’s opinion, the key evidence in this case (at least based on the evidence presented and available thus far) is that Google had notice for years that the bridge had been partially collapsed for years, and yet still directed motorists to use the road leading to the bridge. Obviously, Google did not have a legal obligation to repair the bridge, but it did (at least arguably) have an obligation to redirect motorists and/or provide warning(s) to those who use its Google Maps service.
3. In your reasoned opinion, what should be the outcome in this case?
This is an opinion question, so student responses may vary. Since this is a negligence case, the key determinations that a jury must make (if the case does not settle and goes to trial) is whether Google owed a duty of care to Mr. Paxson and whether that duty of care was breached by failing to redirect him and/or warn him of the bridge’s non-navigability. It is important to understand that Mr. Paxson’s family has also sued two businesses and an individual who they claim owned, controlled, or were responsible for the collapsed bridge, which was unmarked and had no barricades. Even if Google avoids liability in this case, its co-defendants may still be held liable if they indeed owned, controlled, or were responsible for the collapsed bridge.
This case has been filed in a North Carolina civil court. Regarding North Carolina tort law, the Tarheel State recognizes the doctrine of contributory negligence, which is a defense to negligence liability. This doctrine states that if the plaintiff’s negligence, however slight, contributed to their harm in any way, the plaintiff cannot recover anything from the defendant. This doctrine applies even if a jury should determine that the plaintiff’s personal negligence was 1 percent responsible for their harm, while the defendant’s negligence was 99 percent responsible for the plaintiff’s harm.
Although the litigation has yet to reveal any evidence that could cause a jury to determine that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent, it will be interesting to continue to follow the case to see whether such evidence is introduced in the litigation.