“It’s not criminal so they didn’t have any part or responsibility” is something I don’t understand. Of course the routing was part of the reason this happened. Municipality’s/landowner’s part is how they hadn’t closed to road, put up signage etc. Google’s part is the bad routing. Driver’s part is well, the ultimately the driving. Thinking the routing had no part in the death just doesn’t make sense to me.

how does it make any difference how long the bridge has been out for

Ample time and opportunity to fix it, even being told about the issue. Of course the time makes a difference, if the bridge had collapsed 15 minutes prior then it would be less bad on Google’s side for not having made the change.

Google aren’t actually responsible for updating a section of their map, Yes it would be great if they would do it, but they’re not actually legally required to do it.

Of course there’s responsibility for the bad routing, even if they’re not legally required to update the map/routing. I doubt the case against Google goes anywhere but to me it seems obvious they share a part of the responsibility for their routing.