Absolutely. Don't know why Google is being absolved here. Yeah they're not the sole reason the car drove off the bridge but they are a contributing factor and have a duty of care.

[–] ExLisper@linux.community 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Interesting. How 'duty of care' is defined and established? Never heard of the term.

[–] lustrum@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's a common legal term in the UK. Wikipedia had a pretty good overview.

[–] ExLisper@linux.community 0 points 1 year ago

Ok, so we have:

the foreseeability of harm to the injured party;
the degree of certainty he or she suffered injury;
the closeness of the connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury suffered;
the moral blame attached to the defendant's conduct;
the policy of preventing future harm;
the extent of the burden to the defendant and the consequences to the community of imposing a duty of care with resulting liability for breach;
and the availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved.[25]
the social utility of the defendant's conduct from which the injury arose

You pretty much have to prove that Google knew that not updating the map info will cause death with some degree of certainty, that it's possible for them to process all update requests in a timely manner or that if it's not possible they should stop offering navigation because it's utility does not outweigh the dangers.

I would say this is what we're discussing from the beginning and this brings nothing new to the case.