I would agree, however if this statement from the article can be proven:
The lawsuit adds that Google had previously been notified about the collapse and several attempts had been made for the route information to be updated.
Then there might be an argument that Google was negligent in not updating it’s maps. I’d agree that it’s a weak argument and that the Terms of Service likely contains a clause like “you are responsible to watch out for road conditions”. But, if the bridge has been out for a decade and multiple attempts to update Google about the collapsed bridge had been made, that may rise to the level of negligence.