The bridge was unmarked and wasn't barricaded. The court can assign partial liability to multiple negligent parties. The __average person__ expects Google Maps to be current, and Google Maps does provide minute-by-minute updates on traffic and road hazards. The __average person__ doesn't expect a paper map to be updated with the same frequency as Google.
Downvote this if you feel that you know the legal standards that apply here, have read the article and disagree.
That's not really close to what's going on. There's the normal user's presumption that Google is up to date, for instance. And Google takes steps to fulfill that, for instance by providing live traffic data and other road hazards warnings. Not to mention that people stepped forward with evidence saying they informed Google.
Whether that nuance really matters is up to the courts I guess. But I don't think this is in the same ballpark as a decades-old map where the average user wouldn't presume it's up to date.
Downvote this if you feel that you know the legal standards that apply here, have read the article and disagree.