法律英语：56 Ownership of Home Run Balls
时间：2018-12-30 作者：英语课 分类：法律英语 Legal Lad
by Michael W. Flynn
First, a disclaimer: Although I am an attorney, the legal information in this podcast is not intended to be a substitute for seeking personalized legal advice from an attorney licensed 1 to practice in your jurisdiction 2. Further, I do not intend to create an attorney-client relationship with any listener.
On August 7, 2007, San Francisco Giants player Barry Bonds hit his 756th home run, giving him the record for the most home runs hit by a single player in his career. And while baseball fans debate whether Bonds truly owns this record in light of his alleged 3 performance-enhancing drug use, legal scholars also debate the question of who legally owns the ball. Dave wrote:
Recently I read an article about Barry Bonds' 756 home run being caught and then fought over. From the article, it sounded like after the ball bounced a bit, one man had it, and lay on it while several people tried to take it from him. What does the law have to say about this situation? Is it some form of robbery or theft to try to take the ball from the man once he has it? If someone had succeeded in taking the ball from him, would the man have any legal recourse?
Well Dave, the short answer is that this area of the law is completely unsettled. Several legal scholars have devoted 4 entire law review articles setting forth 5 their theories on who should own these milestone 6 baseballs and why. But, few courts have addressed the issue. Indeed, the only case that I could find to deal directly with this issue involves Bonds also.
In 2001, Bonds broke the record for the most home runs hit in a single season when he hit his 73d home run in San Francisco. The outfield arcade 7 was packed with hopeful fans intent on catching 8 this milestone ball. When Bonds hit his record-breaking home run, many people in the stands tried to catch it. One man, Alex Popov, stopped the ball in his glove, but did not quite catch it. Members of the crowd attacked Popov and he dropped the ball. Patrick Hiyashi was standing 9 nearby and picked up the ball from the ground and placed it in his pocket. Hiyashi left the stadium with the ball.
Popov sued, claiming that he was the person to catch the ball, and that the crowd that attacked him, and Hiyashi, effectively stole the ball. The case wound up in San Francisco Superior Court before the Honorable Kevin McCarthy. Judge McCarthy watched a videotape of the incident, heard testimony 10 from several witnesses, and heard legal theories from four property law professors.
The first question before the court was who owned the ball as it soared through the air and into the waiting crowd? Did Major League Baseball? They sponsored the event, purchased the ball for the game, and possessed 11 the ball before the game. Did the San Francisco Giants own the ball? The game was played on the property of the team, and the team employed Bonds, who made the $12 ball worth possibly millions. Did Barry Bonds? He made the ball valuable by hitting so many homeruns. Did fans have a contractual right to the ball by virtue 12 of buying their tickets?
Judge McCarthy did not need to decide this question because the parties agreed on a solution. Major League Baseball owned the ball before it was hit. But, once the ball was hit, the ball became abandoned property because Major League Baseball never intended to get the ball back. Under settled principles of law, the first person to take possession of intentionally 13 abandoned property becomes the full owner.
The next question for the court to decide was whether Popov took possession of the ball when he almost caught the ball. The court had to examine several old cases that involved other pieces of property that have the ability to move, such as wild animals, oil, and shipwrecks 14. After examining these cases, the court adopted a rule proposed by Professor David Gray of the University of California, Hastings College of the Law. Under that rule:
“A person who catches a baseball that enters the stands is its owner. A ball is caught if the person has achieved complete control of the ball at the point in time that the momentum 15 of the ball and the momentum of the fan while attempting to catch the ball ceases. A baseball, which is dislodged by incidental contact with an inanimate object or another person, before momentum has ceased, is not possessed. Incidental contact with another person is contact that is not intended by the other person. The first person to pick up a loose ball and secure it becomes its possessor.”
Applying the rule, the court determined 16 that Hiyashi was the person who took legal possession of the ball. But the court recognized that Popov would have caught the ball and taken full possession if the crowd around him had not attacked; that is, the ball was not dislodged by incidental contact, but by brute 17 force. The court also recognized that Hiyashi had not been one of the attackers; he did not cause Popov to lose the ball. Last, the court wanted to make sure it did not encourage fans to attack someone who is catching a ball. To accommodate these policies, the court created the following rule:
“Where an actor undertakes significant but incomplete steps to achieve possession of a piece of abandoned personal property and the effort is interrupted by the unlawful acts of others, the actor has a legally cognizable pre-possessory interest in the property. That pre-possessory interest constitutes a qualified 19 right to possession which can support a cause of action for conversion 20.”
In the end, the ball was sold for about $450,000 at auction 21, and Popov and Hiyashi split the proceeds. This case has been both praised as a practical and fair solution, and criticized for mashing 22 together too many legal theories in an unwieldy manner.
If a court were to follow this case, it would decide that 22-year-old Matt Murphy owns the ball because he was the fan that took full possession of the ball. There have been no reports that I could find that anyone else held the ball and had any kind of pre-possessory interest like Popov had. To answer Dave's question, yes, if someone had taken the ball from Murphy, he would have a valid 23 claim against that person. This is because, once he took possession of the ball, the abandoned property, he took full ownership of the ball. If someone takes something that you own, you can sue to get it back.
But, no court is bound to follow this case because it comes from a trial court; trial court rulings are generally not binding 24 on other trial courts. So, Major League Baseball, Barry Bonds, or another fan could theoretically sue for the ball. We shall see . . .
Thank you for listening to Legal Lad's Quick and Dirty Tips for a More Lawful 18 Life. You can send questions and comments to..............or call them in to the voicemail line at 206-202-4LAW. Please note that doing so will not create an attorney-client relationship and will be used for the purposes of this podcast only.
Legal Lad's theme music is "No Good Layabout" by Kevin MacLeod.
- The new drug has not yet been licensed in the US. 这种新药尚未在美国获得许可。
- Is that gun licensed? 那支枪有持枪执照吗？
- It doesn't lie within my jurisdiction to set you free.我无权将你释放。
- Changzhou is under the jurisdiction of Jiangsu Province.常州隶属江苏省。
- It was alleged that he had taken bribes while in office. 他被指称在任时收受贿赂。
- alleged irregularities in the election campaign 被指称竞选运动中的不正当行为
- He devoted his life to the educational cause of the motherland.他为祖国的教育事业贡献了一生。
- We devoted a lengthy and full discussion to this topic.我们对这个题目进行了长时间的充分讨论。
- The wind moved the trees gently back and forth.风吹得树轻轻地来回摇晃。
- He gave forth a series of works in rapid succession.他很快连续发表了一系列的作品。
- The film proved to be a milestone in the history of cinema.事实证明这部影片是电影史上的一个里程碑。
- I think this is a very important milestone in the relations between our two countries.我认为这是我们两国关系中一个十分重要的里程碑。
- At this time of the morning,the arcade was almost empty.在早晨的这个时候，拱廊街上几乎空无一人。
- In our shopping arcade,you can find different kinds of souvenir.在我们的拱廊市场，你可以发现许多的纪念品。
- There are those who think eczema is catching.有人就是认为湿疹会传染。
- Enthusiasm is very catching.热情非常富有感染力。
- After the earthquake only a few houses were left standing.地震过后只有几幢房屋还立着。
- They're standing out against any change in the law.他们坚决反对对法律做任何修改。
- The testimony given by him is dubious.他所作的证据是可疑的。
- He was called in to bear testimony to what the police officer said.他被传入为警官所说的话作证。
- He flew out of the room like a man possessed.他像着了魔似地猛然冲出房门。
- He behaved like someone possessed.他行为举止像是魔怔了。
- He was considered to be a paragon of virtue.他被认为是品德尽善尽美的典范。
- You need to decorate your mind with virtue.你应该用德行美化心灵。
- I didn't say it intentionally. 我是无心说的。
- The local authority ruled that he had made himself intentionally homeless and was therefore not entitled to be rehoused. 当地政府裁定他是有意居无定所，因此没有资格再获得提供住房。
- Shipwrecks are apropos of nothing. 船只失事总是来得出人意料。
- There are many shipwrecks in these waters. 在这些海域多海难事件。
- We exploit the energy and momentum conservation laws in this way.我们就是这样利用能量和动量守恒定律的。
- The law of momentum conservation could supplant Newton's third law.动量守恒定律可以取代牛顿第三定律。
- I have determined on going to Tibet after graduation.我已决定毕业后去西藏。
- He determined to view the rooms behind the office.他决定查看一下办公室后面的房间。
- The aggressor troops are not many degrees removed from the brute.侵略军简直象一群野兽。
- That dog is a dangerous brute.It bites people.那条狗是危险的畜牲，它咬人。
- It is not lawful to park in front of a hydrant.在消火栓前停车是不合法的。
- We don't recognised him to be the lawful heir.我们不承认他为合法继承人。
- He is qualified as a complete man of letters.他有资格当真正的文学家。
- We must note that we still lack qualified specialists.我们必须看到我们还缺乏有资质的专家。
- He underwent quite a conversion.他彻底变了。
- Waste conversion is a part of the production process.废物处理是生产过程的一个组成部分。
- They've put the contents of their house up for auction.他们把房子里的东西全都拿去拍卖了。
- They bought a new minibus with the proceeds from the auction.他们用拍卖得来的钱买了一辆新面包车。
- Long ago, they served as a useful third set of mashing molars. 许多年前，它们可是有用的第三套磨牙系统。
- During continuous mashing, filter 2 is filled when filter 1 is full. 在连续糖化过程中，当压滤机1填满后即填充压滤机2。
- His claim to own the house is valid.他主张对此屋的所有权有效。
- Do you have valid reasons for your absence?你的缺席有正当理由吗？