I mean shouldn't the road to the bridge be blocked/fenced off? If not isn't that clear neglience of the state not Google?
Sure Google routed someone to a path which didn't exist.
But so could have someone using an older map or who hasn't been around for years.
So either someone intentionally bypassed a road blockage.
Or the land/state massively messed up by not blocking of a collapsed bridge.
Through condolence to the family eitherway.
> State troopers who found Paxton’s body in his overturned and partially submerged truck had said there were no barriers or warning signs along the washed-out roadway. He had driven off an unguarded edge and crashed about 20 feet below
Downvote this if you feel that you know the legal standards that apply here, have read the article and disagree.
You keep describing the "average person", but this is not the framework that most law uses when considering negligence.
Source: Cases and materials on TORTS; Epstein and Sharkey; 11th addition; page 139
"It is sometimes said that the study of negligence is the study of the mistakes a reasonable man might make."
And then there's a lot more text that goes on to talk about what is 'reasonable' and not just 'average'.
Also, just because the average person wouldn't be harmed does not mean a party would not be liable, because there are non-average people like blind people or old people who must be protected.