Can Google Maps be held liable for negligence?

As technology has advanced, people have grown increasingly comfortable with setting aside independent reasoning, and instead, have put their faith in sophisticated technologies. However, even advanced technologies are not perfect and can fail to perform as intended.

A striking example of this occurred on Sept. 30, 2022, when a man in North Carolina, allegedly following Google Map directions, drove over a bridge that had collapsed almost ten years ago, resulting in terminal injuries. His wife brought suit against the surrounding property owners and Google for negligence. While there remains the interesting question of whether or not Google Maps should be considered a product or service for purposes of pursuing a strict liability theory, the Complaint only alleges negligence. This article will look at the framework California courts might use in analyzing the potential negligence of a provider of technology, such as Google Maps, if such an unfortunate accident had happened in California.

A prima facie case for negligence has four elements: duty, breach, causation, and injury. Rest.3d Torts. “Duty, under the common law, is essentially an expression of policy that the plaintiff’s interests are entitled to legal protection against the defendant’s conduct.” Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, Inc., 14 Cal.5th 993, 1016 (2023). The general approach when analyzing whether there is a duty in this context is set forth in California Civil Code §1714. Section 1714, which provides that “everyone is responsible, not only for the results of his or her wilful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person, except so far as the latter has, wilfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself or herself.” Thus, every person has a duty to exercise, in their activities, reasonable care for the safety of others. Brown v. USA Taekwondo, 11 Cal. 5th 204, 214 (2021). “While the question of whether one owes a duty to another must be decided on a case-by-case basis, every case is governed by the rule of general application that all persons are required to use ordinary care to prevent others from being injured as a result of their conduct.” Hacala v. Bird Rides, Inc., 90 Cal.App.5th 292, 310 (2023). In the North Carolina matter, Plaintiff argued that Google is liable based on its failure to exercise reasonable care in updating its mapping data, thereby creating a risk of harm to Plaintiff that reasonably could have been anticipated.

However, given the complexity of accurately updating GPS-based map information continuously in a country as large as the United States, it is possible that a court may limit the duty placed on GPS providers. Courts have made exceptions to the general duty of ordinary care “only when foreseeability and policy considerations justify a categorial no-duty rule.” Calbral v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 51 Cal.4th 764,772 (2011). A multifactor test is used in California to determine when the scope of a duty should be limited. Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal. 2d 108 (1968). The Rowland factors are:

“The foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff, the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and 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 consequences to the community of imposing a duty to exercise care with resulting liability for breach, and the availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved.” Id at 113.

In general, courts look to the foreseeability of the risks, closeness of the connection between defendants’ conduct and plaintiff’s harm and the burden placed on defendants. The North Carolina Complaint alleges Google was informed of the broken bridge, as a nearby resident had alerted the company to the issue, using Google Maps’ “Suggest an Edit” feature. Moreover, Google acknowledged it had received the neighbour’s suggested edit nearly two years before the accident.

Any consideration of the burden this would place on GPS providers needs to be weighed against plaintiff’s own contributory negligence. The kind of ordinary or reasonable care required of drivers differs and depends on the location, circumstances, and conditions the driver faces. Here, that would include failing to account for visual signs of danger, such as overgrown trees, which led to the fallen bridge. It is important to remember that a driver has an ongoing obligation to act reasonable when driving. That duty is not waived merely because a driver is following Google Maps. Placing liability on GPS providers, and removing even a portion of liability from the driver, will have a ripple effect on the way companies are able to provide GPS services that cannot be ignored.

Assuming courts don’t limit GPS providers’ duty for policy reasons, there is a line of cases based on aeronautical mapping that may support a duty on providers using GPS data, such as Google, to continuously and accurately display geographical data. Courts have held aeronautical navigational aid manufacturers responsible for damages caused by improper depiction of data. For example, in Reminga v. United States, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals found the government negligent when it published an aeronautical chart that depicted a TV tower in the wrong location. The court concluded that because the government, on its own accord, published navigational charts that were to be used in aviation, it had a duty to exercise due care and verify that the chart accurately displayed everything that appeared on it. 631 F. 2d 499 (1980). Applying this framework to the case filed in North Carolina, the court may find that Google has a duty to exercise reasonable care in ensuring the complete accuracy of GPS information and directions it provides to end users.

Alternatively, courts may follow a more conservative approach to negligence and require GPS providers to act as a reasonable GPS provider would under the circumstances (as opposed to requiring complete accuracy). Such an analysis would require a case-by-case examination of the circumstances. The duty of GPS providers remains to be determined but will involve complex analysis that will make drivers question their faith in GPS providers.