liability

“I believe that as the year unfolds there will be no excuse whatsoever for any foreigners to become lost in Beijing and if they do get lost in Beijing, the fault will be theirs for not having invested themselves personally in SmartTrans and EventTrack.”

The above quote was reportedly made by the Prime Minister of Australia on a visit this spring to China. (SmartTrans is an Australian company and its EventTrack technology has been deployed in China.)

http://www.xprn.com/xprn/storyCenter.do?method=loadStoryDetail&storyId=4028ee8c1933117c01193c8a8a9b0053&langId=1

I have a lawyer buddy who is somewhat skeptical of the concept of Spatial Law. Truth be told, he enjoys making fun of it and the Spatial Law blog on a regular basis. Nonetheless, he did pass on a great article on a supposed growing trend in England for kids to use Google Earth - and presumably similar services - to identify homes with pools and then to use social networks like MySpace and Facebook to set a time and place for people to meet and swim . . . all without the pool owners permission or knowledge. (Link is below).

Admittedly this is a wonderful example of how creative people will use easy access to quality spatial data in ways that most of us cannot even imagine right now. However, most people are still trying to adjust to a world where an image of their home is available for the world to see. Articles such as this one are only going to increase their concerns and sensitivities.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23496124-details/The+Google+Earth+gatecrashers+who+take+uninvited+dips+in+home-owners'+swimming+pools/article.do

NBC Nightly News did a report this Sunday (May 4, 2008) on GPS devices in cars. The reports focus was on the flaws in the system, specifically the accuracy of the data. It mentioned in passing a few examples of how errors in the system resulted in accidents - including an accident involving a bus of which I was not aware. I encourage you to visit the program's website if you have not seen the report as it shows what the general public knows - and does't know - about the technology.

In December, I mentioned a commercial for a satellite navigation device I had seen that I felt might create an unreasonable expectation of data quality and timeliness. I have subsequently found a link to the commercial which I have attached below. I would be interested in your thoughts on this topic.

http://www.flix55.com/watch/qToL5uehNQk

I am sure you have noticed the number of television commercials involving GPS devices during the holiday season. I find the one of a ribbon cutting for a new bridge the most intriguing. Immediately following the cutting of the ribbon - a matter of a second or two - a couple with a GPS device in their car drives by and then over the bridge.

Clearly the intent of the commercial is to show that even though the bridge had just opened, it had already been loaded onto the GPS device and made available to the customer; the company is advertising the timeliness and accuracy of its spatial data. I wonder, however, if the company is not creating an expectation for consumers that cannot be met -- and which could be used against them in future litigation.

http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=206903550 is a link to an article from information week.com sent to me by Carl Reed. The article discusses how an author of two books on Google believes that the company may develop a business plan around its patented bus transportation process - currently used to transport its Bay Area employees. According to the article, the system combines Google's mapping technology and GPS and is linked to employees' cell phones to inform them real time when buses are approaching. One can easily see the numerous benefits of this technology for consumers. However, one can just as easily see privacy advocates expressing concerns about the potential implications.


http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/03/14/street_mix_up_delays_police_response_to_slaying/ is a link to a Boston.com article that explains how police officers responding to a 911 call were sent to the wrong address based upon information provided by a computer mapping system designed for such occassions. Apparently, there were at least three identical street addresses in the system for the neighborhoods covered. It appears from the article that the mistake was at least partially due to human error, for not clarifying which neighborhood the crime occurred and for not checking a secondary computer system - which indicated that there were three such addresses. However, one can imagine a plaintiff's lawyers asking why the primary system did not provide the same information. According to one official, "In this particular case there was an over-reliance on the new technology."

EnvironmentalChemistry.com posts a well-written article on the problems encountered by having volunteers using satellite and aerial imagery to try and locate lost avaitor Steve Fossett with Amazon Mechanical Turk. A number of the problems listed had to do with the quality of the imagery for the particular application or the coordination and interfaces that were needed. However, the article also states that individuals did not read or follow the instructions given to them and volunteers did not understand what they were seeing on an image ("the complete inabilities of many participants to be able identify the difference between natural objects like dead trees, rocks, shadows, etc. and foreign objects that did not belong like airplane wreckage").

In developing consumer products and services using spatial data, a company should always keep the human element in mind - its products and/or services may be used by individuals who are not qualified and/or who do not follow instructions. Preparing for this in advance can help a company reduce its risk of liability.

http://blog.environmentalchemistry.com/2007/10/internet-search-for-steve-fossett-eight.html

I am not sure that this is directly related to Spatial Law, but the following link is a good exampple as to why it is so hard for the legal and policy community to keep up with the spatial community. http://www.pbs.org/idealab/2008/02/its-got-to-be-about-more-than.html While we struggle to deal with the legal issues surrounding sat nav devices, the author is suggesting other ideas that I am sure are in the works. To quote from the blog:

"If we can have navigation systems that deliver real-time directions (linking voice files to place and delivering it in real time), there's no good reason why we can't use the same system to deliver meaningful content - just change the content from "turn left in a half a mile on Avenue A," to, say, Martin Luther King's Speech at the Great March on Detroit in June 1963 (with his good friend the Reverend C.L. Franklin sitting with him on the platform and daughter Aretha's music in the background) and hear instead . . "

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/02/11/africa/ME-GEN-Israel-Google-Earth.php
The above link is to a recent article in the International Herald Tribune, which reports that an Israeli town is suing Google for slander because it allowed a Google Earth user to insert a note that the town was built on a former Arab village. There are a variety of possible takes on this matter if in fact a lawsuit was filed. For example, one can wonder why is Google a party, since it did not add the note, it simply provided a forum? Or one can question whether a town can bring a lawsuit for slander? For my part, I am just surprised that someone even came up with the idea for this lawsuit.

Spatial Law related articles:

Article from a UK newspaper that suggests that satellite navigation devices may result in an increase chance for automobile accidents. Data providers as well as hardware manufacturers should follow this closely. http://www.prestoncitizen.co.uk/news/headlines/display.var.1725758.0.sat_nav_warning_to_motorists.php

NYC taxi cab drivers lose first round of fight to prevent implementation of a city rule requiring installation of GPS devices. According to the article, the judge stated that the value of the service outweighed the cab driver's privacy concerns. If this quote is accurate, it is an innovative approach to privacy matters and raises a number questions. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21034113/

Congressional Quarterly reports the delay of the start of the National Applications Office within the Department of Homeland Security. According to the article, one of the reasons is to give Congress time to learn more about the program with respect to privacy concerns. http://public.cq.com/docs/hs/hsnews110-000002596738.html

Another link concerning the rental car getting stuck on the railroad tracks. http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=5954948&ch=4226721&src=news

Many of you have probably already heard about the recent accident involving a driver in a rental car who, following the directions given to him by his sat nav device, turned onto railroad tracks. When the car got stuck he was able get out before it was then hit by a train. Thankfully, nobody was hurt. However, apparently the driver is being held responsible for damages caused to the train and the rental car.

The following link was forwarded to me by a reader of Spatial Law: http://www.news.com/Is-GPS-liability-next/2010-1033_3-6226346.html It is by a lawyer who raises the question as to whether the driver might sue the manufacturer of the device for providing improper directions, which resulted in the accident As I have noted before, I believe that this scenario raises an important issue for the industry. The author of the article addresses the potential liability of the device manufacturer. However, a plaintiff's lawyer will likely sue everyone in the chain (data provider, device manufacturer, software developer, etc.) and let the court system determine and/or allocate liability.

The article has caused a great deal of reaction in the spatial technology industry with many people suggesting that the driver is totally at fault. I expect that it will also generate some interest in members of the legal community as well -- some of whom having a different point of view.

I like the note added to the directions on the attached link. I wonder how many other sites do the same?

https://www.med.virginia.edu/internet/maps/building_detail.cfm?id=13

I am planning on periodically posting summaries of significant spatial law cases. The first is Brocklesby v. U.S. 767 F.2d 1288 (9th Cir. 1985). It was decided in 1985 and is a very significant case in the area of product liability.

In Brocklesby, survivors of a plane crash brought an action against the publisher of allegedly defective instrument approach chart. The publisher used data from the FAA to portray the instrument approach procedures on a chart. The pilot was using this chart during the flight that crashed. The case, which was heard in California, was submitted to the jury on three theories of liability: breach of warranty, negligence and strict liability. Jeppeson had a number of defenses to these claims, including (1) the case did not involve a defective “product” for strict liability purposes, (2) that the defects in the FAA data will not support strict liability against Jeppeson, and (3) policy considerations barred any tort liability in this case.

In its ruling, the court found that the chart was a product, citing Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. v. Jeppesen & Co. 642 F.2d 339 (9th Cir. 1981). It also found that strict liability was applicable, citing Saloomey v. Jeppesen & Co., 707 F.2d 671 (2nd Cir. 1983) (“Though a ‘product’ may not include mere provision of architectural design plans or any similar form of data supplied under individually-tailored service arrangements, .. . the mass production and marketing of these charts requires Jeppesen to bear the costs of accidents that are proximately caused by defects in the charts.”) . Moreover, the court held that strict liability applied even though all “the defects in the Jeppesen chart stem from the Government's alleged failure to establish a safe instrument approach procedure.” The court held that “we note that Jeppesen had at least some ability to prevent injuries to users of its charts. Jeppesen’s production specifications manual required its employees to research any procedure thoroughly ‘to determine its validity and completeness’ . . . [a]ccordingly, Jeppesen had both the ability to detect an error and a mechanism for seeking corrections.” Moreover, the court found that “strict liability is appropriate even though ‘the seller has exercised all possible care int eh preparation and sale of his product.’”.

With respect to the public policy issue, Jeppesen stated that it was unfair to hold it strictly liable for “accurately republishing a government regulation.” However, the court stated that “Jeppesen's charts are more than just a republication of the text of the government's procedures. Jeppesen converts a government procedure from text into graphic form and represents that the chart contains all necessary information. . . [a]s the manufacturer and marketer of those products, Jeppesen assumed the responsibility for insuring that the charts are not unreasonably dangerous in their intended use.”

A recent New York Times article discusses how small villages in England are being overrun by large trucks driving through their narrow streets based upon directions taken from navigation devices. These directions provide for the shortest route, with no regards to the adequacy of the streets for such travel. As a result, there have been a number of accidents - mostly involving fences and side mirrors - and increased traffic on roads "built in the days of horses and carts".



There were two quotes in particular that I thought had significance from a product liability standpoint. Dick Snauwaert, a spokesman for Tele Atlas is quoted as saying " We map the reality - the streets, the signposts and the road infrastructure as it is in reality. We cannot change that reality in our database. Who are we to make a change and say, 'You cannot drive in that road' if , in reality, you can drive in that road" Geoff Dossettter, a spokesman for the Freight Transport Assocation, is quoted as saying "Foreign drivers very much depend on sat nav systems when they're coming to a different country, and they are following them rather more blindly than they ought to."


From a potential liability standpoint, "reality" is a very high standard to achieve, particularly with regards to consumer products. This standard becomes even more challenging if one knows that consumers are "blindly" relying on your products.




http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/world/europe/04gps.html?ex=1354424400&en=7a5d76e99e6f9669&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink