Woman sues Google

[Dariel]

So, here's a case where a woman sues Google for not telling her that there wasn't a crosswalk there (Or something of the sort). She also says it was dark... Here's the link.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/197752/woman_sues_google_over_bad_directions_update_it_wa s_dark.html

Just wanted to see if there's actually any chance of the woman successfully suing Google (Probably not) since there seem to be some lawyers on this forum (The only one I can think of is texlaw1992).

I seriously laughed really hard while reading this. The comments are pretty good too. :p

[thingirl]

Unfortunately, she probably has a case. Remember the woman who sued McDonalds after spilling hot coffee on herself? Yeah.

[Dariel]

Well, I suppose the McDonald's one kind of made sense...at least it had SOMETHING to do with McDonald's. However, as the writer says in his article, there is actually no connection between her getting hit by a car and Google not mentioning a crosswalk. If she could even SEE correctly, she would have noticed. The writer also says that if the car didn't have headlights on, then it's the driver's fault. The sheer stupidity of people kind of amazes me sometimes XD

[Lightwielder]

Well, I suppose the McDonald's one kind of made sense...at least it had SOMETHING to do with McDonald's. However, as the writer says in his article, there is actually no connection between her getting hit by a car and Google not mentioning a crosswalk. If she could even SEE correctly, she would have noticed. The writer also says that if the car didn't have headlights on, then it's the driver's fault. The sheer stupidity of people kind of amazes me sometimes XD

It's like suing your doctor because he diagnosed you with something that you don't want to be diagnosed for (Like fatal cancer). If it was a false or mistaken diagnosis, there would be merit, but if it was correct, you are no worse off JUST because you found out. The cancer will kill you, whether you know of it or not.

People are attempting to place blame on anyone else other than themselves. It's a poor state of society to be in. People need to realize their own responsibility. When these people don't, laws and regulations are put in place that restrict the freedom and ability of the RESPONSIBLE people.

[thingirl]

People are attempting to place blame on anyone else other than themselves. It's a poor state of society to be in. People need to realize their own responsibility. When these people don't, laws and regulations are put in place that restrict the freedom and ability of the RESPONSIBLE people.

Yes!!!!!! That just shows the truth of your second siggie quote.

It's like if I give a friend directions to the store. You have to walk/drive on a semi-busy street, cross a busy one, and turn on another nasty one before getting to the store. If they get hit by a car while following my instructions, it's not my fault. The instructions weren't bad, they just didn't look where they were going.

[Oldschool]

Well I'm interested in Texlaw's perspective.

I don't know all the facts but I glanced over the links including the court docs.

I'm no lawyer but it's stuff like this that gives folks the wrong impression. Like every profession there are good lawyers and bad ones.

I'm guessing the plaintiff or her lawyers are hoping for a quick out of court settlement by any/all of the interested parties - especially the ones with deep pockets (i.e. Google, the insurance company). What's worse the bean counters will often figure how much the "bottom line" (estimate of costs to just get to court) is and sometimes offer a settlement under that.

And while the jury system is good it seems to have declined along with the overall state of society. I know that's a pretty general and broad statement but I'm guessing most folks get the gist of what I'm trying to convey. Interested to hear Texlaw's opinion on jurys as well.

It stands a good chance that a prospective juror(s) may be inclined to vote one way or another based upon personal views regardless of the merits of the case. That's human nature but it seems that more and more that's becoming the norm rather than the exception.

And if the plaintiff had to be transported to the hospital and treated her medical records should indicate any state of impairment due to drugs/alcohol. Be interesting to know what the outcome of any criminal investigation was as well.

[texlaw1992]

I have a jury trial starting in Austin on Monday, so my opinion of juries may change depending on the outcome (lol). Generally speaking, I prefer bench (judge) trials, especially in the realm of transportation law where I do the vast majority of my cases (they're somewhat legal-intensive, and a judge often can understand better than a jury).

That being said, with respect to Google her lawyer may be partially right insofar as he could argue comparative responsibility even with Google's disclaimer to use caution, etc. However, I'm pretty sure she's be found 50% or more responsible, which in most jurisdictions means she cannot recover. I wouldn't peg Google's percentage of responsibility beyond the low single digits, if any.

[zmflavius]

Well, I suppose the McDonald's one kind of made sense...at least it had SOMETHING to do with McDonald's. However, as the writer says in his article, there is actually no connection between her getting hit by a car and Google not mentioning a crosswalk. If she could even SEE correctly, she would have noticed. The writer also says that if the car didn't have headlights on, then it's the driver's fault. The sheer stupidity of people kind of amazes me sometimes XD

Actually, the Mcdonald's one also did make sense, because the coffee was hotter than the legal limit, notwithstanding the fact that the woman who spilled the coffee told them to make it hotter.

That said, in my opinion, the ridiculousness of the Mcdonald's case rivaled that of lawsuits where a guilty defendant is let off because the arresting officer mispronounced the guy's Miranda Rights.

[Snake]

lol

[Young Ned]

If I recall the McDonalds case correctly, the person got third-degree burns from the coffee. Not quite so funny now, is it?

But yeah, this Google case sounds pretty stupid.

[spencer]

If I recall the McDonalds case correctly, the person got third-degree burns from the coffee. Not quite so funny now, is it?

But yeah, this Google case sounds pretty stupid.


I am sorry, but if you drink scalding coffee in a car, it comes with some inherent risk.

[Young Ned]

I am sorry, but if you drink scalding coffee in a car, it comes with some inherent risk.

True. But did the customer know it was scalding? And did McDonalds break any law or regulation by selling coffee that hot?

Just trying to show that there's a bit more to the McDonalds lawsuit than people commonly assume.

[zmflavius]

True. But did the customer know it was scalding? And did McDonalds break any law or regulation by selling coffee that hot?

Just trying to show that there's a bit more to the McDonalds lawsuit than people commonly assume.

1) Yes she did, she demanded the coffee be hotter than normal, and she tried to balance it on her lap in a moving car or something like that.

2) However, the coffee was 40 degrees Fahrenheit hotter than the legal limit (I don't recall the figures, but it was something like "sold coffee can only be heated up to 140 degrees Fahrenheit and hers was 180 degrees)

[Lightwielder]

1) Yes she did, she demanded the coffee be hotter than normal-

What is "normal" by McDonald's standards? If normal is 100 degrees, than 130-140 degrees would still satisfy her demands.

If normal was 135-ish degrees, why don't they inform her that they would be breaking a legal regulation to heat it further, and refuse to accommodate her?

[Young Ned]

I had never heard before that the woman requested the coffee be made hotter than normal, so I looked up the case on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants). That article says nothing about her requesting it at a hotter than normal temperature, but it does say "During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds."

It also doesn't mention any law or regulation about how hot the coffee should or shouldn't have been, but it does point out that "[t]he National Coffee Association of U.S.A. instructs that coffee should be brewed 'between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit [91–96 °C] for optimal extraction' and consumed 'immediately'. If not consumed immediately, the coffee is to be 'maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit'."

Interestingly, it also notes that a British judge threw out a similar case against McDonald's because he felt that coffee served at the temperature the plaintiff claimed was safe would have been "unacceptable" to their customers.

Seems a lot of our impressions of the case are mistaken, including some of mine. After reading that article, I'm now more inclined to feel that the case was baseless and shouldn't have succeeded. Interesting reading -- check it out.

Edit: Oh, and the car was actually parked when the spill occurred.

[texlaw1992]

As I recall, the legal theory used in the case was breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, meaning the coffee was not fit for ordinary purposes of consumption at such a high temperature. 12 people agreed. McDonald's does not still serve coffee at that temperature.

[zmflavius]

Ah.

I stand corrected.

[Oldschool]

......but it does point out that "[t]he National Coffee Association of U.S.A. instructs that coffee should be brewed 'between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit [91–96 °C] for optimal extraction' and consumed 'immediately'......................


Between 195 and 205 °F and consumed immediately.........?

Yeah boy! Optimal immolation maybe.

[Lightwielder]

Between 195 and 205 °F and consumed immediately.........?

Yeah boy! Optimal immolation maybe.

Quite the creative use of words, Oldschool.

[scout1idf]

I put milk or cream in my coffee so it's not nearly that hot.

Actually I like ice coffee better......

[Young Ned]

Actually I like ice coffee better......

Ever had Vietnamese iced coffee? Yum. One restaurant near here makes quite the production out of it. They bring you a large glass full of ice, with a layer of condensed milk at the bottom, maybe half an inch thick or so. Then they sit a drip brewer thingy on top of the glass -- it has coffee grounds and a filter in it, and they fill it with hot water, which then drips down through the coffee grounds and into your glass. The hot coffee melts most of the ice, getting a lot colder in the process, and when it's finished brewing you take the drip gadget off and stir it up so the condensed milk gets mixed through it. Very yummy.

One slight problem, though: if the drip rate is too slow it can take most of your meal before it's finally ready to drink... http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v735/Old_Ned/icon_cool.gif

[spencer]

It was interesting to read the wiki article as a great many details did kind of get lost in the media frenzy. I would have liked to have been a member of that jury.

[Lightwielder]

Ever had Vietnamese iced coffee? Yum. One restaurant near here makes quite the production out of it. They bring you a large glass full of ice, with a layer of condensed milk at the bottom, maybe half an inch thick or so. Then they sit a drip brewer thingy on top of the glass -- it has coffee grounds and a filter in it, and they fill it with hot water, which then drips down through the coffee grounds and into your glass. The hot coffee melts most of the ice, getting a lot colder in the process, and when it's finished brewing you take the drip gadget off and stir it up so the condensed milk gets mixed through it. Very yummy.

One slight problem, though: if the drip rate is too slow it can take most of your meal before it's finally ready to drink... http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v735/Old_Ned/icon_cool.gif

Hmm, well, there's always Irish coffee, but you have to be a certain age to drink that, or so I'm told.

[kzero]

For anyone that watches NBC's The Office (U.S. version), Michael Scott did a similar thing and drove his car straight into a lake because his GPS told him to "take a right". He thought it was a shortcut.