Baseball caught: Ownership? Can one leave?

Question

A spectator found the baseball of Shohei Ohtani's first home run in the bleachers.

According to the linked article, she was surrounded by security and pressured to give up the ball (so that Ohtani can have the memorabilium). She was offered other memorabilia as a compensation.

There are two somewhat connected legal questions here (I hope it's OK to discuss them together):

1. Who owned the ball? Was it actually the woman's? My own legal assessment leans to "no" because no transfer of ownership was intended and the ball was probably not "abandoned". On the other hand, baseball customs and precedence may be that a spectator acquires ownership.

2. Even if she didn't obtain ownership: Was the security staff allowed to keep her from leaving with the ball? That situation created a lot of pressure to make a decision which may not have been favorable. Let's assume she was willing to pass on an ID so that she could be contacted later to resolve the dispute.

Answer 1

See Popov v. Hayashi. The person who caught the ball, or who first obtained possession of the ball, becomes the owner.

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 judgment cited Paul Finkelman, "Fugitive Baseballs and Abandoned Property: Who Owns the Home Run Ball?" for this point. Finkleman outlines a bunch of parties who could conceivably have a claim to ownership of the ball: the batter, the catcher, the pitcher, Major League Baseball, the home team (who supplies the balls). He ultimately concluded (and the judge and parties in Popov v. Hayashi agreed) that the rule is or should be that balls are considered abandoned when hit into the stands. It reviewed the example of Mets security guards forcing a fan to give them Mike Piazza's 300th home run ball. Finkleman's opinion that this would be conversion, battery, or fraud (given the Mets' explicit policy that fans be allowed to keep the balls).

Answer 2

Who owned the ball? Was it actually the woman's? My own legal assessment leans to "no" because no transfer of ownership was intended and the ball was probably not "abandoned". On the other hand, baseball customs and precedence may be that a spectator acquires ownership.

Not merely custom and precedent, but also explicit written policy.

https://www.mlb.com/dodgers/ballpark/information/guide

The Dodgers are happy for guests to keep any baseball hit into the stands as a souvenir.

I think this makes it pretty clear that the Dodgers did intend to transfer ownership of the baseball to the fan.

AFAIK this policy is universal among baseball teams; I didn't check all 30 MLB team web pages, but I follow baseball a bit and have never heard of any exceptions. It's considered part of the enticement of attending a game, so I think you could argue it is a term of the contract formed when the ticket was purchased.

I can't think of any legal basis that Dodgers security would have had to actually physically prevent the fans from leaving with the ball, and it's not really clear from the article if they tried to do so, or if they just tried to make it socially uncomfortable for them to leave. If they did physically prevent them from leaving, that would likely be false imprisonment, a crime under California Penal Code Section 236 and also a common-law tort.

What's claimed more explicitly is that they told the fans that if they left with the ball, the Dodgers would refuse to authenticate it, which would greatly reduce its potential market value. That's probably not illegal; it's just, as the article puts it, "hardball tactics" of negotiation (groan). (Though I wonder if it is in keeping with MLB policies, which AFAIK generally encourage significant game artifacts to be authenticated.)

Answer 3

A line from the Dodgers own website states in the 'Foul Balls and Milestone Balls section reads, "The Dodgers are happy for guests to keep any baseball hit into the stands as a souvenir." It looks like the guest in question did own the ball according to the Dodgers published information.