A friend of mine recently told me of a precedent-setting case in California in which a man was waiting at his doctor’s office for 2 hours before the physician showed up. He said he was late because he was getting a hair cut.
The man left, angry that his time had been wasted, and sent the doctor an invoice for the 2 hours he had been made to wait. The case went to court and the court upheld the patient’s invoice, thereby setting a precedent. So now, if you have an appointment with a company that is supposed to provide a service and they are several hours late, you are able to bill them for wasting your time on an hourly rate.
So first off, is this true? And of course I am asking for a reason: my satellite installers were over 5.5 hours late today. Actually that’s when I left my house in disgust, they still hadn’t shown up. Can I bill them and show them a written copy of the precedent showing that they owe me money? (I had to miss several hours of work because of their no-show, and had to reschedule for another day which will also cost me.)
Or is this just a bogus urban legend designed to make the wronged feel righted?
Aieeee! Sorry, I have to use the cheap tactic of adding to my own post as it’s moved far down the queue onto the second page without any replies. Do no Straight Dopers have the scoop on this? I mean, don’t we all want to make the cable companies, doctors, drapery installers, etc’s of the world pay us when they keep us waiting for hours past their promised appointment times without even an apologetic phone call?
showing them the court case (especially if you don’t live in california) won’t do anything. Sending them an invoice, then suing them for lost time (how you come up with the value of that is also suspect) would get you to the point where you can say “hey look at this california case” as some minimal support for your position. Doubt you’d get past summary judgment. All the other 49 states know that california courts are presumtively wrong, so if you are planning on using new california common law as persuasive authority, good friggin luck.
As nice as it sounds, it’s bad public policy to allow people who are forced to wait to sue for lost wages (i presume that’s how the value is calculated). There’s no contract to sue on, no understanding beforehand what your lost wages will be. What if you get paid $4000 an hour and are made to wait for 3 hours? Now, if you want to get your doctor/haircutter to sign a contract beforehand stating the terms for payment if they are late, that’s fine. But if anyone made to wait can start suing for money, guess what… nobody will provide services anymore, or they’ll only let you have an appointment if you disclaim any “late” charge. So, in the end, it’s a whole lotta nuthin, and a big waste of time.
Suing the doctor sounds fine, but just wait until you are on a couple of medications that are reasonably extending your life expectancy. You give the doctor a problem and he doesn’t renew your prescription. Okay, you get a new doctor and he keeps you waiting and you sue him and he cuts off your medicine. I mean who do you think is going to surrender first? Same thing with cable or phone companies, etc. In the end they have got you by the gonads. Just smile so that the grip isn’t too tight.
As I understand it, your doctor is free to terminate the doctor-patient reationship at any time. You kust have to be given a reasonable time, generally considered to be 30 days, to find a new doctor.
It’s not so much suing these folks, just fair billing. For example, the satellite installer didn’t show up yesterday and I missed 5 hours of work… and we found out he didn’t show up because he basically didn’t feel like it. (Long story… but apparently he’s done this before. Let’s just say he don’t work there no more.)
Or the movers who, just a week ago, told us they were on their way (the dispatcher lied)… and showed up 6 hours late, saying they then had to charge us overtime because it was after 6pm.
Those are the kinds of abuses that should be billed.
I, for one, would be quite interested in a cite for this case. I’m finding it hard to imagine the legal theory under which this claim could be sustained. If the invoice were upheld, it must have been an action in contract - could the court have found a quasi-contract? I doubt it.
I’m no civil lawyer, I’ll be the first to admit, but my BS-detector is going off.
I, for one, would be quite interested in a cite for this case. I’m finding it hard to imagine the legal theory under which this claim could be sustained. If the invoice were upheld, it must have been an action in contract - could the court have found a quasi-contract? I doubt it.
I’m no civil lawyer, I’ll be the first to admit, but my BS-detector is going off.
