Who is suing whom for what?
Popov (the tall guy who can’t catch) is suing Hayashi (the short guy who ended up with the ball) in conversion.
Popov claims that Hayashi has converted “his” baseball – that Hayashi has wrongfully taken or is wrongfully withholding Popov’s baseball and refuses to give it back. P. 117
What about the true owner? Why doesn’t this ball belong to the San Francisco Giants, the home team who owned the ball before it was pitched to Bonds?
See p. 124, n. 1.
P. 117 MLB abandoned its rights to the baseball, thus “the first person who came in possession of the ball became its new owner.” See also P.A. announcement at start of game (Up For Grabs)
So this is abandoned property and title belongs to the first person to take possession. To establish his claim for conversion, Popov has the burden of establishing that he was the first possessor of the ball.
According to the court: What is possession? P. 118
Possession is “a process which culminates in an event. The event is the moment in time possession is achieved.” Eureka!
Suppose Popov caught the ball, put it in his pocket, and then dropped it when taking it out of his pocket to show it to his buddies.
Hayashi grabs it and keeps it.
Who wins?
But how is the real case different?
Two definitions of possession
P. 119
“Gray’s Test” complete control of the ball--you must “catch” the ball.
vs.
Bernhardt and Finkelman Test: “Possession occurs when an individual intends to take control of the ball and manifests that intent by stopping the forward momentum of the ball whether or not complete control is achieved.” [“Stonefingers” Finkelman]
Which test do you think is best for a baseball hit into the stands?
Possession is situational – depends on the nature of the object and its situation. Eads P. 110.
Custom of the industry (Salvage vs. Hunting vs. Baseball). P. 120
Which rule does the court apply? P. 120
The court looks to the “custom and practice of the stands.” What does that mean?
Which stands? The bleachers or the Luxury Sky Suites?
A catch is a catch; if you drop the ball, it is not a catch. Sorry,
Finkelman!
Gray’s rule – so Popov did not acquire possession of the ball.
Hayashi was the first possessor.
So he wins, right? Not so fast, “Mr. Hickeringill”!
P. 121 Equity. Fairness. Media attention!
Popov has “a legally cognizable pre-possessory interest in the property.” “Pre-possessory” possession. How much do you want 2 plus 2 to be?
What does that mean? P. 121
“gang of bandits” prevented him from a fair chance of Catching the ball.
What about all the other fans who were prevented from catching the ball by the chaos of the crowd? Do they have a pre-possessory interest too?
Middle ground – each of Popov and Hayashi has an “equally strong” claim to possession:
Hayashi as the first possessor
Popov as the holder of a “pre-possessory interest.”
How does the court weigh these competing claims to conclude that they are of equal weight? Justice Scalia used to say that the problem with balancing tests is that they require you to decide whether a particular rock is heavier than a particular string is long. Do you see his point? What is it?
Court discusses Keron v. Cashman at P. 123 (kids playing with old sock stuffed with $775 cash). Each boy got a lollipop. Right!
Equitable division (P. 122):
Finder and landowner each gets one-half.
The rule "provides an equitable way to resolve competing claims which are equally strong.' "It comports with what one instinctively feels to be fair." P. 123
Does Judge McCarthy think he is King Solomon? Did Solomon really intend to cut the baby in half? Or was this a clever ruse designed to discover which of the two women was the child’s real mother and thus entitled to full custody?
