Stages in a case

Stages in a case

Stage One: Case Facts

The case at hand is the case that represents one woman, Rosenberg, who sued Google for negligence and putting her life in danger. The facts of the case state that on the 22nd day of January 2009, The Plaintiff had used her google maps to find directions between Daly street and Deer Drive street. The walkway that she was using lacked sidewalks for pedestrians, but this was not indicated in the Google Maps on her blackberry phone. She, therefore, was hit by a car and sustained injuries. The Plaintiff was, therefore, suing Google company and seeking settlement in terms of damages totalling to 100,000 dollars. The Automobile that hit Rosenburg was a man by the Howard. From this incident, Google was being sued and was facing four charges, including, negligence, defective designs failure to warn and strict liability by the Plaintiff.

Stage Two: Consult with Attorney

A legal hold notice is typically issued in civil cases. It is designed to preserve all relevant documents and data which can be used for future litigation. Both parties are required to comply with this order. The prosecuting attorney initializes this legal hold notice. The prosecuting attorney then should counsel communication with all personnel that have access to ESI, documents, and relevant information.

Stage Three: Informal Investigation

The type of investigation that was generally done was in line with looking at the instructions that are given by Google in their maps. It was clear that some phones including iPhone and the Blackberry did not clearly warn that the path and route that the Plaintiff was using lacked any sidewalks and was, therefore, a Possible road that cars passed through. As a manager and businessperson, I would have gone forth to take the CCTV on the path that the Plaintiff was hit by the automobile allegedly belonging to Harwood. Other forms of investigation that could have been done would include investigations of the companies Map app and how they were assisting pedestrians in finding their locations. Putting this few aspects into investigation could help a lot in enabling the court to determine and het the facts of the case right.

Stage Four: Plaintiff’s Complaint

Lauren Rosenberg was the Plaintiff in this case of negligence. Lauren Rosenberg was hit by a vehicle while walking along a rural highway with thick traffic besides no sidewalks. Google Maps directed her through route 224, a freeway minus walkways. The Plaintiff believed that defendant Patrick Harwood negligently drove the vehicle. The vehicle hit Rosenberg in January 2009 following the road, she had selected after accessing Goggle Maps on her Blackberry phone. Lauren Rosenberg is in the case is claiming the following against Google: general negligence, failure to warn, strict liability. Furthermore, Rosenberg argued that she accessed the Google Map function through the Blackberry that only had a small screen, so does not comprise the warning. The Plaintiff sought over $100,000 in damages following the incident from the defendant. In the case, Rosenberg consented on the third and fourth claims.

Stage Five: Defendant’s Answer

Google was the defendant in this case. Google being the defendant in the case, claimed that the case should be dismissed on the premise that the complainant fails to mention the cause of action against the defendant. The defendant contended that usually, the directions that the Plaintiff was using came with caution of caution to walkers. The defendant asserted that the versions of Google Maps accessible by mobile devices and computer desktops contain a disclaimer.

Stage Six: Discovery

The success of a Civil Lawsuit process is determined by the extent to which the parties pay attention to details during the case preparation. The discovery stage involves gathering the relevant information by each party either from third parties or from one another. Extensive research on the law requirements regarding the issues of the case and witness interrogations assist clients and their legal representatives in evaluating the merits of claims and defences. Information is collected legally through written questions, requests for copies of documents, or through asking a party to acknowledge or disagree with statements of facts. Information can also be obtained through depositions whereby a party’s attorney questions a witness under oath and a court reporter records the answers. Allegations may be used when the witness is unable to attend the trial in person, or when a witnesses’ credibility needs to be questioned. Moreover, parties may use motions before trial to request the court to rule or act. Some motions require for dismissal of a plaintiff’s complaint or a defendant’s defence while others require the court to mandate a party to produce documents. As compared to the other stages of a lawsuit, the discovery step is usually the longest. However, the length of a trial is determined by the matters of the case, the quantity of discovery to be carried out, and the court’s schedule and convenience.

Stage Seven: Motions

Both the Plaintiff and the Defendant Filed a motion. Rosenberg filed a motion to sue the company for giving her wrong directions. Google also filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s Claims. Google immediately files for dismissal. To deny a court must determine the relationship between Google and Rosenberg as well as analyze whether the application Rosenberg was using properly informed her on the surroundings. The business issue here is whether google offers a product that provides safe and well informative directions to keep the user safe and adequately guided.

Google was found not to be liable for the injuries of Rosenberg and that there was no indication of negligence on their behalf and that there was no strong likelihood of damage due to them. Accordingly, the dismissal was upheld entirely.

Stage Eight: Trial or Settlement

While preparing for the trial, a party must decide which evidence to present and what witnesses to call. A valid and appropriate choice can be achieved by having settlement meetings with a court attorney or the judge. Just before trial, each party presents a document know as a ‘brief’ to the judge or jury. The documents contain evidence that supports parties’ claims or defences. The trial begins in an opening statement where both the Plaintiff and the defendant present their outline of the case. The parties then produce their evidence using exhibits or by calling upon witnesses to testify. After calling and questioning a witness, the opposing party is granted a chance to cross-examine the witness with an aim of challenging his or her testimony. Typically, the Plaintiff presents its evidence first; then, the defendant files his or her defence. Every party then offers their closing remarks after all the evidence has been presented to the judge or jury. After the closing arguments have been issued, the court advises the jury on the most appropriate law to be applied based on the evidence provided by both parties. The jury then does an evaluation and makes a conclusion or verdict.

The Case Lawsuit against google did not proceed to settlement and was rather settled through court trials. The judges in the case found that defendant did not owe Rosenberg a duty that it was her negligence that resulted in the accident. Although Google offered her custom-made search results for her directions through the highway, the court ruled that defendant in the case did not have an intensified duty of care to the complainant, because this kind of data is accessible to the public. The law court further established that the prospective dangers in this circumstance would be willingly clear to the pedestrian and Rosenberg had the duty to undertake the care of herself to make sure that she does not get hit by an automobile.

The main message of the court was that Google did not owe any duty to Rosenberg, based on the claims that were presented before the court. The court argued that the firm (Google) did not owe defendant any duty since it did not have an uninterrupted lawful association with the Plaintiff. Amongst other explanations, the law court established that Google’s mapping services provide substantial worth to the general public and that permitting the lawsuit to proceed would open access to “almost infinite obligation” for the defendant. Certainly, a verdict against the company may turn it into an indemnity carrier in influence, with all kinds of distressed drivers, as well as accident fatalities suing the firm for defective data or routing. The court decision on the case was founded on the ground that nothing in the objection showed that there was a predetermined or fiduciary association amid Rosenberg and Google, which could give escalate any pledged duties on the defendant.

impact of “Future Business Decisions” for the company

The case serves to highlight that in the future, it is not recommendable to impose duties suggested by the Plaintiff that would likely to eliminate or diminish the responsibilities already imposed on pedestrians as it was in the case. This means that imposing a duty of a company like Google would make the company liable for its negligent acts, which will function to reduce the duty of walkers have on their protection. This will not oblige the objective of making persons responsible for their mistakes.

The lawsuit could have been avoided if Rosenberg had not been negligent and wholly depended on technology (Google Maps Services) to guide her to cross the busy highway that did not have sidewalks. The Plaintiff should have not entirely depended on the technology to guide her decisions on crossing the highway but should have used her mind too. In the future, other users and Rosenberg should ensure that they use a road with sidewalks and never depend wholly on technologies for guidance.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it’s important to note that the stages that are involved in a lawsuit are essential in understanding how different kinds of cases are handled. In the Rosenberg v. Harwood, the court acknowledged the fact that the practical outcomes of a win for the Plaintiff could lead to a flood of the same lawsuits that would finally compel the defendant to take account of cautions or disclaimers or to provide services in a diverse platform. The Civil Procedures is usually very expensive, especially in terms of giving out settlements to the Plaintiff. In other cases, the process may not even yield an absolute resolution of the dispute. As a result, the parties involved in the dispute may opt for some alternatives to litigation which include settlement, mediation, and arbitration. It is often advisable for the parties to review the potential of the available options to litigation which are, in most cases, cost-effective to trial. The parties may seek assistance from a third party or the court to oversee the negotiation of a settlement. Generally, teamwork between the clients and their legal advisors yields a successful litigation process as it makes it easy to assess the available options and choose the strategy that best suits the client.