,Rosenberg v. Harwood, what business and ethical reasons would Google have to settle the case before it went to court? What reasons would it have not to settle the case? Do you think Google made the right decision to pursue litigation rather than alternative dispute resolution?

And this is the case study

1.Case Citation

Rosenburg v. Hardwood, Case No. 100916536. (2011)

Facts:Plaintiff Lauren Rosenberg alleges that Defendant Google negligently provided her with walking directions that directed her to cross State Route 224, a rural highway with heavy traffic and no sidewalks, where she was seriously injured after being struck by an automobile that was negligently driven by Defendant Patrick Harwood. Google now brings this motion to dismiss Rosenberg's claims against it, on the ground that the Complaint fails to state a cause of action against Google.

2.Procedure:

As discussed in this Memorandum Decision, three of the four Normandeau factors weigh against imposing the duties on Google that Rosenberg articulated in the Complaint. Although some harm may have been foreseeable, the actual likelihood of injury was relatively low, the relationship between Google was somewhat attenuated and there was no special, fiduciary, or contractual relationship between the parties that would give rise to a duty of protection. Finally, and perhaps most significantly, policy considerations weigh strongly against imposing the suggested duties on Google because the heavy burdens associated with such a duty, along with the high value of Google's services, significantly outweigh the minimal likelihood of injury.

Accordingly, Google's motion to dismiss is GRANTED in its entirety.

3.Issue(s):

(1) General Negligence, (2) Failure to Warn, (3) Strict Liability-Defective Design, and (4) Strict Liability-Failure to Warn.

4.Analysis:

Although both parties focus on and address the constitutional issues first in their memoranda, the Utah Supreme Court has instructed that "courts should decide cases on non-constitutional grounds where possible, including common law . . . grounds," and should only "resort to constitutional law" where "the court cannot resolve the issue before it by reference to common law." The supreme court has further instructed that the question of whether a defendant owes a plaintiff a duty is the first question that should be addressed in a negligence case. Accordingly, they begin the analysis with Google's argument that it does not owe Rosenberg a duty. Because, in conclusion, Google did not owe Rosenberg the duties alleged in the Complaint.

5.Conclusion:

It is concluded that the Normandeau factors weigh in favor of a conclusion that Google does not owe Rosenberg the duties specified in the Complaint. Accordingly, Google's motion to dismiss is GRANTED in its entirety.

6.Business Issue(s):

Policy considerations, negligence.

7.Ethical Issue(s):

Whether or not Google intended deliberate harm of its users.

8.Public Policy Issue(s):

Rosenberg argues that Google is not a publisher because the Google Maps service "provide[s] one-on-one information about walking routes" that is not "published to the general public." Regardless, the information Google provides through its Google Maps service is not confined to such a limited audience.To claim that Google provided the information only to one individual, and therefore is not entitled to the protections afforded publishers, ignores the realities of modern society and technology.

9.Do you think the case was rightly decided? Why or why not?

I do believe the case was rightly decided. Information provided on the Google Maps service "is readily available via the internet,", and any individual who enters the same starting and ending points will obtain the same walking directions that were provided to Rosenberg.