MFM Liability?

[yoladu]

With more freeloaders making unreasonable demands on mfm, and that got me thinking.

For example, during navigation mode, the gps gave an illegal instruction such as U-turning at the junctioin where it is not legal, and resulted in an accident. Can the user make a case out of it to make mfm liable for the mistake ?

This may sound kiasu but mfm must have some protections. I don't think there is any disclaimer to exonerate mfm from such errors which are inevitable..

maybe some legal eagles can advise ?

[shawchyn]

With more freeloaders making unreasonable demands on mfm, and that got me thinking.

For example, during navigation mode, the gps gave an illegal instruction such as U-turning at the junctioin where it is not legal, and resulted in an accident. Can the user make a case out of it to make mfm liable for the mistake ?

This may sound kiasu but mfm must have some protections. I don't think there is any disclaimer to exonerate mfm from such errors which are inevitable..

maybe some legal eagles can advise ?

This is a good question, but if the person driving with "leaving behind the comon sense" & it better not driving at all.

[cwyap]

With more freeloaders making unreasonable demands on mfm, and that got me thinking.

For example, during navigation mode, the gps gave an illegal instruction such as U-turning at the junctioin where it is not legal, and resulted in an accident. Can the user make a case out of it to make mfm liable for the mistake ?

This may sound kiasu but mfm must have some protections. I don't think there is any disclaimer to exonerate mfm from such errors which are inevitable..

maybe some legal eagles can advise ?

At the installation stage, just put in the disclaimer of liability in BIG BOLD font that says that "Users of MFM map (i) use this map at their own peril and risk, (ii) that they alone bear the responsibility of their own safety and the safety of those on board their vehicles as and when they are using MFM map and (iii) as MFM map is provided on a no-obligation/no-warranty basis, anyone who disagree to the conditions imposed on usage must not proceed with the installation and/or use of MFM map. ".

This message should be PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED upon the installer being run. Only when the user clicks "I HAVE READ AND AGREED TO THE DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY" then should the installer proceed to the usual installation routine.

The only issue here is what if some kind hearted souls generate the gmapsupp.img file and share it with others (those who don't run the installer and just copy the img file)? This one - you will need a real lawyer to advise you guys, not a loyar buruk like me .

[mr engineer]

In my opinion, driving aid tools such as a GPS unit, is only used to assist drivers to make "informed" decision. The final responsibility still lies with the drivers to make that split second decision. So, if his GPS for unknown reason asked him to drive straight ahead into a river and he did that, he shouldn't be driving in the first place!

Just my 2 cents worth of thoughts.

[silverbeauty]

With more freeloaders making unreasonable demands on mfm, and that got me thinking.

For example, during navigation mode, the gps gave an illegal instruction such as U-turning at the junctioin where it is not legal, and resulted in an accident. Can the user make a case out of it to make mfm liable for the mistake ?

This may sound kiasu but mfm must have some protections. I don't think there is any disclaimer to exonerate mfm from such errors which are inevitable..

maybe some legal eagles can advise ?

This is a good question, but if the person driving with "leaving behind the comon sense" & it better not driving at all.

Title : Is GPS liability next?
Article Source : CNet
Link : http://news.cnet.com/Is-GPS-liability-n ... 26346.html

Extract :
GPS instructions are of great value and often are correct, they are not perfect.

What happens if a GPS unit's instructions lead to an accident? While a driver might argue that he or she paid for a service, is entitled to rely upon the accuracy of the service, and can seek to hold the provider of the service responsible if the service does not perform properly, a GPS service provider would have counterarguments.

Who bears responsibility?
First, likely, the written contractual materials, and the click-through materials to operate a GPS device, would disclaim any responsibility in this scenario and would require the driver to ensure that his or her driving of the vehicle was safe wholly apart from whatever the GPS device tells him or her to do.

The question then would be whether this would be considered a bargained for and enforceable contractual provision, or whether it would be considered an unenforceable "adhesion contract." That would be for a judge to decide.

Second, separate from contractual terms, a GPS service provider could argue that it was not too long ago that GPS devices weren't available to drivers. Indeed, to this day, many drivers do not use such devices. Thus, for decades and even now, drivers must independently figure out how to get to their intended destinations. Accordingly, just because a GPS now might provide some assistance, it is unreasonable to allow a driver to fob off all responsibility on the GPS provider.

On the other hand--and when it comes to legal matters, there always is another hand--a GPS device, when operational, at a minimum, is very distracting, and at most, is quite commanding. When tooling through unfamiliar territory and given explicit directions by a GPS device, a driver must make a decision in a split second what to do. At that point, it might not be unreasonable if he or she relied upon the GPS instructions.

As technology advances, the law follows, and I wouldn't be surprised to see more GPS cases going forward that map out (pardon the pun) this area of the law.

[yoladu]

In my opinion, driving aid tools such as a GPS unit, is only used to assist drivers to make "informed" decision. The final responsibility still lies with the drivers to make that split second decision. So, if his GPS for unknown reason asked him to drive straight ahead into a river and he did that, he shouldn't be driving in the first place!

Just my 2 cents worth of thoughts.

That is common sense but lately there seems to be quite a few jackass lurking around here, and with an ambulance chaser, they can make a case out of nothing in this world of litigation.

I'm sure mfm does not have any public liability insurance so the owner(s) of mfm could be vulnerable.

Even Garmin has a disclaimer on the operations of the GPS while driving.

If matter is legitimate, and ireal, then just add a disclaimer clause somewhere to plug some holes instead of leaving it wide open.

[badrol]

mfm by itself shall not be liable as mfm is not a legal entity. If you remember the Gunung Ledang declaration, the map data belong to the mappers, hence, most likely the mappers will be personally liable.

There is no case law for us to use as a precedent so it is hard to tell. Some more the mappers are providing the map free of charge and this factor will play a big role in the judgment later.

[musangking]

Good point Bro Badrul

I believe that MFM is not liable to the customer because we have no customer. Ours is a free community map and you receive it out of your own free will. If you BOUGHT the map, then yes, I would say that we're under a duty of care to provide an accurate map that, if gives faulty information such as making an illegal u-turn, then there should be legal recourse.

Unfortunately, MFM is just SO much better than the official map so what to do lah? Everybody wants our maps.

[yoladu]

Just for reference, Map Centre does have such a disclaimer clause

See under Para 7

http://mapcenter.cgpsmapper.com/tos.php

[vash_h]

typical example of people that do not read the 'warning' message when you switch on your gps unit. not sure about papago and others, but Garmin does warn you to keep your eyes on the road while driving and that they will not be held liable for any accidents.

you have been warned when you switch on your gps unit..