GPS navigacijos pradžioje buvo gudručių kurie tikėjosi numelžt gamintojus už 
savo žioplumą, dabar jau tai praktiškai neįmanoma. Aišku galima pabandyt jei 
turi atliekamų pinigų advokatams ir neturi ką veikti, visiems bus pramoga. 
Sekanti banga bus kai atsiras automobiliai su autopilotu. Vėl prie pirmos 
avarijos arba kad nuvežė ne ten, ne laiku prasidės popkornai. Automobilio 
gamintojas kaltas, navigacijos gamintojas kaltas, duomenų tiekėjas kaltas ir 
t.t. Nieko naujo.

"Bronco" <TRINTI_bronco.mail@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:ni4fs8$nt7$1@trimpas.omnitel.net...
> On 2016-05-25 08:38, amenox wrote:
>> O jei nenuvažiuosi gali paduot navigacijos gamintoją į teismą, kai tai
>> darysi pranešk čia, aš popkorno nusipirksiu. :)
>
> Precendentas:
>
> Saloomey v. Jeppesen
>
> https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/396
>
> The jury also answered 18 separate interrogatories; those responses showed 
> that the jury believed Jeppesen (navigational charts producer) to be 
> liable on all theories of liability urged by the plaintiffs--negligence, 
> breach of implied and express warranties, and strict products liability. 
> In a separate damages trial, the jury awarded Wahlund's estate $1,500,000 
> and Erik's estate $5,000. The court then denied Jeppesen's motions for a 
> new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
>
>
> Griežtos atsakomybės tema GPS'o atveju nėra tokia akivaizdi ir paprasta, 
> kaip jums čia atrodo. Galit žvengt ir rašyt apie popkornus, bet taip nėra. 
> Viskas žymiai sudėtingiau. Net ne visi teismai vienodai traktuoja GPS, 
> vieni kaip produktą, kiti kaip servisą, treti, kaip kažką tarpinio. Jei 
> teismas traktuoja GPS kaip "popierinį žemėlapį", t.y. "produktą", 
> taikytinas mano paminėtas precendentas ir (ar) "griežtos atsakomybės" 
> koncepcija.
>
>
> Čia pvz. iš viso, sakyčiau, ganėtinai keistas įvykis ir ieškinys, kuris 
> atrodytų, jog yra visiškai beviltiškas, bet... taip nebūtinai nutiks:
>
>
> http://fortune.com/2010/05/29/if-google-told-you-to-jump-off-a-cliff-would-you/
>
>
> Ir dar info pamąstymui:
>
>
> The novelty of the legal terrain is hinted at by the presence of just one 
> article in a law journal exploring evolving GPS liability issues as 
> applied to driving. This is the wonderfully titled "Oops, My GPS Made Me 
> Do It!" written by John E. Woodward and published in the University of 
> Dayton Law Review. One fundamental issue, Woodward notes, is locating the 
> actual source of the problem: Was the miscalculation some fault of the 
> software, the hardware, or a temporary glitch in triangulation owing to a 
> defect on the satellite? And one of the most interesting questions 
> Woodward raises is whether the directions given by a GPS unit represent a 
> product or a service (in which case, product liability claims would not 
> apply).
>
> To answer these questions, he looks back to a number of cases involving 
> aeronautical charts, which "similar to modern GPS automotive products … 
> help guide pilots from point A to point B." In one representative case, 
> Saloomey v. Jeppesen & Co., the survivors of a plane crash filed suit 
> against Jeppesen, the maker of the chart, for mistakenly indicating that 
> an airfield depicted on the chart was equipped with a complete 
> instrument-landing system (to enable pilots to land using only 
> instruments). "Tragically," writes Woodward, "Jeppesen's area chart was 
> incorrect and the airfield was only equipped with a system that would 
> indicate whether the pilot was on the proper flight path." As a result, 
> the pilot misestimated the altitude of his approach, crashing into a 
> ridge. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, finding in favor of liability—and 
> ruling that Jeppesen's charts were a product—wrote: "By publishing and 
> selling the charts, Jeppesen undertook a special responsibility, as 
> seller, to insure that consumers will not be injured by the use of the 
> charts."
>
> Despite warnings on GPS units, it does not seem outlandish to think this 
> court's reasoning might apply to navigation systems. One potential out for 
> the defendant, notes Woodward, is "comparative fault"—i.e., the extent to 
> which a driver shares responsibility in the crash. "The manufacturer will 
> have a better case for applying comparative fault," he writes, "when it is 
> obvious that the end-user deviated from what a reasonable person in the 
> end-user's position would have done. For example, if there was an 
> abundance of signage indicating the name of the street and the street's 
> one-way status, the end-user will more than likely have some comparative 
> fault leveled against him or her." Another approach, as attorney Peter 
> Neger argues in Law Technology News, is for manufacturers to argue "that 
> disregarding visual cues like railroad tracks in favor of blind reliance 
> on the GPS navigational device constitutes misuse of the product and 
> thereby voids the limited warranty." (Then again, it's easy to imagine a 
> successful lawsuit in which a driver has turned onto train tracks because 
> a traffic sign is missing, even though he or she conceivably should still 
> have seen the tracks.
>
>