Popov and Hayashi were sitting in the stands during a
baseball game. A player hit a homerun ball that landed in Popov's glove.
Before he had full control of the ball, he was mobbed by a crowd and the
ball went flying. It eventually ended up in the possession of Hayashi.
The ball was a famous home run souvenir that turned out
to be worth about $450k.
The entire incident was recorded by television cameras.
The amount of control Popov had over the ball was
ambiguous.
Popov sued Hayashi for conversion, trespass to
chattel, injunctive relief and constructive trust.
Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion
over the personal property of another. There must be actual interference
with the plaintiff's dominion.
Trespass to chattel exists where personal property
has been damaged or where the defendant has interfered with the
plaintiff's use of the property. Actual dispossession is not an element
of the tort of trespass to chattel.
Hayashi didn't damage the ball, so trespass to chattel
was an irrelevant claim.
Both Popov and Hayashi agreed that prior to the time the
ball was hit, it was possessed and owned by Major League Baseball. At the
time it was hit it became intentionally abandoned property. The
first person who came in possession of the ball became its new owner.
The Trial Court heard from a number of experts on the
meaning of possession:
"Possession requires both physical control over the
item and an intent to control it or exclude others from it. But these
generalizations function more as guidelines than as direct determinants
of possession issues. Possession is a blurred question of law and
fact."
"The orthodox view of possession regards it as a
union of the two elements of the physical relation of the possessor to
the thing, and of intent. This physical relation is the actual power over
the thing in question, the ability to hold and make use of it. But a mere
physical relation of the possessor to the thing in question is not
enough. There must also be manifested an intent to control it."
"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 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."
This is known as Grey's Rule.
It was noted that, with respect to hunting and fishing, a
person is considered an owner of a fish once it is hooked, despite the
fact that they are not in complete possession until the fish is in the
boat.
The Trial Court noted that Mr. Popov might have retained
control of the ball if he was not attacked. His efforts to establish
possession were interrupted by the collective assault of a band of wrongdoers.
The Trial Court adopted the rule that, 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 right to possession that can support a cause of action for
conversion.
However, the Trial Court also noted that an award of the
ball to Mr. Popov would be unfair to Mr. Hayashi. It would be premised on
the assumption that Mr. Popov would have caught the ball. That assumption
is not supported by the facts. An award of the ball to Mr. Hayashi would
unfairly penalize Mr. Popov. It would be based on the assumption that Mr.
Popov would have dropped the ball. That conclusion is also unsupported by
the facts.
The Trial Court ruled that the best way to solve this
problem was equitable division.
In equitable division, the item is sold and the
proceeds split between the two parties.
In this decision, the Trial Court invented a new form of
property right, the qualified pre-possessory interest, and said
that it was awarding 100% of each party's property interest to him.
One problem Popov had was that, as plaintiff, he had the
burden of proof of showing he would have caught the ball. If it were
truly unknowable (like the judge said), then there was no way he could win
this case. This idea bothered the judge, so he changed the law to be more
fair (at least in his opinion).
