The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark search twitter facebook feed linkedin instagram google-plus avvo phone envelope checkmark mail-reply spinner error close
Skip to main content

Remember a year ago when there were a number of people up in arms because of the map case against Google? Back then I wrote:

This is one of those cases, that on it’s face sounds like what will be the US Chamber’s next alert about the runaway tort system. Of course, it’s just one case out there and if it’s frivolous, the court system will deal with it. I would suspect that Google will have all of the best legal help that it will need to respond.

Others here at the Injuryboard also wrote about the case:

Woman Sues Google Maps: Here Come the ‘Lawsuit Abuse’ Idiots, Mark Bello | May 30, 2010 8:44 AM

Google Made Me Do It? Google Sued for Giving Directions, John Hopkins | June 02, 2010 8:07 PM

Woman Sues Google after She is Hit by Car While Following Google Maps, Paul Napoli | May 31, 2010 11:48 PM

Guess what? The system worked. Lowering the Bar reported last week that:

The judge sided with Google, finding that the plaintiff alleged no facts showing a special relationship between herself and Google of a kind that could create some special duty. And because Google qualified as a "publisher," free-speech considerations weighed against finding a duty under the standard analysis. Plaintiff argued that Google was not a "publisher" in this case because it was providing her with personal "one-on-one" directions, but the judge didn’t buy that. Under the plaintiff’s theory, the judge said, there would be basically no limits on the potential dangers Google would have to warn about – including "dangerous wildlife" – and so imposing this duty would effectively put an end to the useful mapping service. Since Google couldn’t have breached a duty it didn’t have, case dismissed.

The Judge found that she had no case, because Google wasn’t required to protect her. In Minnesota, the defendant would now be able to move for their costs. I don’t know about California. If nothing else, it gives Google better protection from these types of cases. It also tells the consumer that they really can’t rely on everything that Google sells us. I will conclude in the same way I did the first post:

I hope the woman isn’t hurt very bad. If she is, I hope she heals quickly and completely. That would be so much better than having any claim.


  1. And that's the important point, Mike. The civil justice system has ALWAYS had a mechanism to dismiss cases that judges find meritless. Judges can even assess costs against the lawyers and plaintiffs who bring them. "Tort reform" is not needed for that, never was. "Tort reform" does NOT seek to prevent or punish frivolous suits; it seek to limit recovery in SERIOUS ones. I DO NOT WANT THE LEGISLATURE, STATE OR FEDERAL, SUBSTITUTING ITS JUDGMENT FOR THAT OF A JUDGE OR JURY, DO YOU? This what tort reform is about: Against our 7th Amendment protections, politicians, to curry the favor of corporate campaign contributors, pass laws restricting our rights to compensation for serious injury and/or death. And for every dollar that corporate America saves by receiving what can only be called "corporate welfare", the taxpayers must pick up and pay as the balance of the bill. America: Save your outrage at the Anthony verdict and reserve it for a loud, public, protest about the trampling of your rights by corrupt politicians and corporate renegades.

  2. That is the whole key Mark. Thanks for the comment and taking the time to read my blog.

Comments are closed.

Of Interest