Not a good start to my Disney vacation.

[Mikie]

I have to say that this is a terrible example of nuisance lawsuits. The woman who sued was severely burned after McDonalds had been warned they needed to lower the temperature of the coffee that they were serving. It was heated to a temperature that would ensure that the coffee was hot after it had been sitting in the cup for at least 20 minutes becuase their research had determined that the customer commute after purchase was 20 minutes. McDonalds ignored that warning each time.

I am not positive that the lid was not secure, but IIRC, the woman who was burned was trying to get the lid on properly. WHen the coffee spilled it was so hot it melted the polyester fabric of he pants which then adhered to the skin on her thighs. She was hurt because a company was sure that they did not need to follow a cease and desist order that might impact their own sales. I think it was the size of the award that had been challenged, not that they lost.

Thank you! I saw this referenced back on page three and set about reading through the entire thread tosee if anyone would set the record straight. That poor woman was unfairly vilified and had become the go-to example of frivolous lawsuits, when in actual fact she was never anything but reasonable. She only asked for her medical costs. McDonald's reacted with a very effective character assassination campaign.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

Yes, thanks for correcting the misconception about the hot coffee lawsuit! It's understandable that people believe the short version - "dummy spills coffee, sues McDonald's!" However, Nancyg has the correct info. There are far too many frivolous lawsuits around, but this wasn't one of them.

My business law professor had an interesting explanation about the size of the judgement and the fact that the one woman received it. The judge/jury tried to determine the amount of damages based on a correlation to McD's coffee sales. They started by wanting to award one day's worth of coffee sales for every day the woman missed work being treated for her burns. It was an amazingly large amount of money, many times the eventual award. They thought it seemed like a good formula for calculating, but it was so huge, they decided to calculate 2 days' worth of coffee sales and ended up with the millions she got.

Also, it wasn't necessarily determined that SHE deserved all that money, but rather that McD's deserved that much punishment. In a courtroom, you can't give the money to the judge, jury, or lawyers, so if a defendant has to pay, it's the plaintiff who gets it. If a single plaintiff brings the complaint, not a class action, then that person gets the whole award.

 

[EagleG17]

Enough with the games, This happens literally every single day in society. It was a computer error.

If one needs to worry about "available credit" being available perhaps they really shouldn't be going to Disney and use the money on more critical things.

 

[Magpie]

Something that has just occurred to me...

Since there is no way to know exactly where along the line the error occurred - whether it was on the user's end, Disney's end, or somewhere in betweeen - Disney really CAN'T afford to start compensating people when this happens. Or even sound too apologetic about it (ie, acknowledge responsibility).

Why not? Because the moment word gets out that an accidental double billing netted someone free parkhoppers, then everyone and their uncle will be hitting "submit" as many times as they can in hopes of replicating the error.

We love free stuff. The only way Disney gets away with being as generous with the "pixie dust" as they are, is by sticking to customer service situations that are mostly not repeatable and can't be exploited for profit.

Case in point, we bought a dinner package for Fantasmic. The show was cancelled halfway through due to inclement weather. We stopped by guest services, explained the situation and said, "What can you do for us?" The nice lady said, cautiously, "What would you like?" We told her we'd really like to see the show, from the dining package section, on a different night. She brightened and said that was fine, and then asked if we'd be needing park admission. We said no, we had tickets already. So she gave us return seating vouchers and all was good. But next to us at the desk was another family with a dining package and we heard them being told firmly that, "No, we cannot compensate you for the weather!" They seemed very upset. It's anyone's guess exactly what haopened, but I'm thinking they wanted something rather different than what we did.

 

[Nancyg56]

Thank you! I saw this referenced back on page three and set about reading through the entire thread tosee if anyone would set the record straight. That poor woman was unfairly vilified and had become the go-to example of frivolous lawsuits, when in actual fact she was never anything but reasonable. She only asked for her medical costs. McDonald's reacted with a very effective character assassination campaign.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

It makes me crazy whenever someone uses this lawsuit as an example of nuisance lawsuits. When a liquid is so hot that it fuzes your clothing to your skin, and when that company knew that they were in violation of a court order....how is this woman to blame?

 

[bumbershoot]

When a liquid is so hot that it fuzes your clothing to your skin

And worse; when a liquid is that hot and it's a liquid meant to be imbibed *right then and there*, it's absolutely lawsuit-worthy.

None of us would want our grandmothers to have to have skin grafts in the groin area simply because she was trying to drink a cup of coffee.

 

[Kimberly9701]

It makes me crazy whenever someone uses this lawsuit as an example of nuisance lawsuits. When a liquid is so hot that it fuzes your clothing to your skin, and when that company knew that they were in violation of a court order....how is this woman to blame?

And worse; when a liquid is that hot and it's a liquid meant to be imbibed *right then and there*, it's absolutely lawsuit-worthy.

None of us would want our grandmothers to have to have skin grafts in the groin area simply because she was trying to drink a cup of coffee.

I agree that I could have used a better example.

I stand by my statement that 'entitlement' is a huge issue in this country right now, and also that frivolous lawsuits are plentiful and mostly ridiculous.

 

[bumbershoot]

And a single large charge for something like Disney World would not cause the system to "halt" for a while. Although multiple charges in a short period of time would trigger a flag.

On vacation we were returning our rental car. Stopped to fill it up with gas. Didn't know the side of the car the tank was on, and DH got out and did the card authorization before realizing the hose wasn't going to reach. Figuring that out, getting in the car, turning around, and getting situated back at the pump caused the authorization to time out. When he re-ran the card, it was denied. Flat out, totally denied. Two charges inside of about 3 minutes caused our account's system to call a halt to further charges, and we had to call, from the gas station, to get it lifted so we could get gas.

THAT is what I'm talking about.

We've also had experiences where something out of the ordinary causes the bank/cc company to just say "no" to the charge because their systems thought it was out of the ordinary.

Let's face it; the message the OP said he got is unusual. So *something* happened there. Something was halted, then restarted. I feel it's an anti-fraud thing. I haven't read to see if there was an OP update, but I feel very strongly that one of the two charges is just a pending charge, that will drop off.

Yeah, it's totally money if it's a debit card that's being held up. A CC I care a bunch less about, but money in my bank account is a big hells naw.

If one doesn't have enough in the bank to cover accidents, if one feels that way, one shouldn't use a debit card, then.

 

[Kimberly9701]

Enough with the games, This happens literally every single day in society. It was a computer error.

If one needs to worry about "available credit" being available perhaps they really shouldn't be going to Disney and use the money on more critical things.

This was one of the reasons I doubt it was a debit card-
1. He probably would have stated it bc yes, it is more annoying.
2. Unless you're paying bills, or on vacation, there is no reason to keep that money in your checking when it can be making money elsewhere.- and if that mistake did put a mortgage payment etc in jeopardy- he probably would have stated that as well. Even if an interest earning checking that would encounter a penalty- he would have probably stated that and would have made sense why a phone call to his bank was needed.

It's 2016, if it was a checking account, all you have to do is grab your nearest electronic device and with a click of a button you can transfer your money. If it was a a credit card, like I'm assuming, then seriously it's barely an issue at all.

I posted the Disney transactions from my checking account- which after cancelling, were back in said account within 48 hours.

I rarely use credit cards unless the points or discount make it worth it..even with stores I've switched to their debit cards (Shout out to Nordstrom for leading the pack in this years ago!!! And to Target. Hello, BR are you listening?! )

 

[Magpie]

I agree that I could have used a better example.

I stand by my statement that 'entitlement' is a huge issue in this country right now, and also that frivolous lawsuits are plentiful and mostly ridiculous.

Yep, fair point.

I am just very wary now whenever the media trots out another tale of a "frivolous" lawsuit, because I am always wondering if I'm getting the real story. Nine time out of ten, these days, whenever I read of something "outragous" or "shocking" in the media, I end up learning there's far more the story than I'm being told.

Did McDonald's deliberately manipulate the media, or was it just lucky chance that "woman sues over hot coffee!" was SO much juicier than the real story? Probably some combination of both, I expect.

 

[aaarcher86]

On vacation we were returning our rental car. Stopped to fill it up with gas. Didn't know the side of the car the tank was on, and DH got out and did the card authorization before realizing the hose wasn't going to reach. Figuring that out, getting in the car, turning around, and getting situated back at the pump caused the authorization to time out. When he re-ran the card, it was denied. Flat out, totally denied. Two charges inside of about 3 minutes caused our account's system to call a halt to further charges, and we had to call, from the gas station, to get it lifted so we could get gas.

THAT is what I'm talking about.

We've also had experiences where something out of the ordinary causes the bank/cc company to just say "no" to the charge because their systems thought it was out of the ordinary.

Let's face it; the message the OP said he got is unusual. So *something* happened there. Something was halted, then restarted. I feel it's an anti-fraud thing. I haven't read to see if there was an OP update, but I feel very strongly that one of the two charges is just a pending charge, that will drop off.



If one doesn't have enough in the bank to cover accidents, if one feels that way, one shouldn't use a debit card, then.

I could cover whatever I want, doesn't mean I like have the funds on hold out of my account.

That seems like kind of a dumb theory. Don't use your debit card for anything, ever, unless you can afford for accidents to happen.

Well okay, but how much makes it affordable? Ulta charged me 6x or so. What if I can afford 6 but not 10x?

 

[Kimberly9701]

Yep, fair point.

I am just very wary now whenever the media trots out another tale of a "frivolous" lawsuit, because I am always wondering if I'm getting the real story. Nine time out of ten, these days, whenever I read of something "outragous" or "shocking" in the media, I end up learning there's far more the story than I'm being told.

Did McDonald's deliberately manipulate the media, or was it just lucky chance that "woman sues over hot coffee!" was SO much juicier than the real story? Probably some combination of both, I expect.

Here's an example of how, for lack of a better term, stupid and entitled attitudes waste everyone's time. Recently someone tried to sue the company I work for, and included me in it.
They were approved for an installment loan with a co applicant. ONE DAY after this, the guy went and filed a Chapter 7...the loan was still in the final approval status, and an alert was flagged for the bankruptcy, and the loan would no longer be approved. When I notified him he absolutely flipped out, saying that this information was breaking federal law and a violation of his privacy rights etc etc. I thought it was all idle threats. Nope, he apparently has an attorney in the family and did in fact file a suit against us. He obviously lost before it ever was escalated to the court level, but it was a gigantic waste of time for everyone involved.

 

[cindyfan]

I'm a bit disappointed in some of the unsympathetic responses here! some borderline rude. The OP is just frustrated!
I totally feel for you!!! And it can feel like "stealing" since they were tying up your credit line for over a week.
I had a similar thing happen with a stay at one of the Hilton hotels (unrelated to a WDW trip). And the frustrating part was that even though it was "pending"...... and it was "pending for the entire 4 days I was there!! .... it was using my "available credit" and I could not use my card.
I suggest you contact Guest Relations and just calmly explain the situation. If nothing else it will make you feel better and be able to "let it go!"
For my situation..... Hilton did comp me one night for the inconvenience! (and I didn't "ask" for anything......) I just wanted to let them know. And actually..... they thanked me because they then realized they had a system issue!! They need to track these things so they don't happen again!

 

[eyehartdisney]

Enough with the games, This happens literally every single day in society. It was a computer error.

If one needs to worry about "available credit" being available perhaps they really shouldn't be going to Disney and use the money on more critical things.

The second part of this message is rude, and unnecessary.

 

[Kimberly9701]

The second part of this message is rude, and unnecessary.

...but unfortunately, it's true. And sound advice.

I'm not saying this is the case of the OP. But yes..if $1600 being held for a few days makes or breaks you, then you have bigger things to worry about than WDW.

 

[EagleG17]

...but unfortunately, it's true. And sound advice.

I'm not saying this is the case of the OP. But yes..if $1600 being held for a few days makes or breaks you, then you have bigger things to worry about than WDW.

I certainly meant no disrespect by my comment. Just stating that perhaps if tying up $1600 is critical to your everyday spending, perhaps Disney isn't right for you.

 

[eyehartdisney]

...but unfortunately, it's true. And sound advice.

I'm not saying this is the case of the OP. But yes..if $1600 being held for a few days makes or breaks you, then you have bigger things to worry about than WDW.

It's none of your business what someone else's financials are, and as so many people around here are complaining of entitlement, no one is 'entitled' to tell someone else what to do with their lives.

 

[Kimberly9701]

It's none of your business what someone else's financials are, and as so many people around here are complaining of entitlement, no one is 'entitled' to tell someone else what to do with their lives.

I never said he shouldn't go,,and also stated that I'm not saying this is his situation. I still say Disney did their part in issuing an immediate refund, and that is all they should be expected to do.

 

[lovethattink]

I'm closing this thread. It really isn't going anywhere and I think there's enough info explaining what can be done when overcharged.