I’m typically not a fan of the frivolous ways people use the U.S. court system. They sue when they burn themselves after not checking the lid on their McDonald’s coffee or when an incorrect weather report allegedly results in someone catching the flu because they dressed too lightly.
But a woman who sued the Philadelphia Phillies when the team played a switcheroo on her 12-year-old daughter after the girl caught Ryan Howard’s 200th homerun ball …
Well, I think it’s too bad it got to the point where the family took legal action, but shame on the Phillies and on Howard for taking advantage of a naive kid to get the slugger his souvenir ball.
According to CNN, after the girl caught the ball a Florida Marlins representative took her to the Phillies’ clubhouse where a Philadelphia rep told the child and her brother that if she left the ball she could have Howard sign it. When she returned with her grandfather after the game, the team provided her with a ball signed by Howard, but not the original ball.
First off, it’s commonplace for fans to trade landmark balls back to players for different merchandise. Otherwise the fans have the option of taking the balls onto the open market. According to the CNN story, the Howard ball might have been worth a couple thousand dollars at most.
But quotes in the story make it sound like the girl, Jennifer Valdivia, wanted the ball more for sentimental reasons. And that also is her right.
So, again, shame on the Phillies for taking advantage of the girl and her family by playing the switcheroo. Shame on Howard for not meeting with her to sign the ball – or offer her some alternative such as a game-used bat or another ball signed by Howard. He had the chance to create a fan for life – and possibly get his ball back in the process.
But instead Howard and the team played the role of bully. And so yes, I am glad the family got a lawyer and filed suit. When notified that the girl and her lawyer were seeking the ball and compensation in excess of $15,000 Valdivia got her ball back.
Chalk one up for the little gal in this case. And thank you Phillies for making my rooting interest in your playoff series easy. Go Rockies.
Loading ...
sad that this mom and daughter don’t have a life…it’s just a ball…
There is no doubt that the representatives from the team handled it the wrong way, but I think it is insensitive for the family to keep the ball. Ryan Howard made a huge accomplishment. This is a milestone in his sport career and they should have been happy for him and gave him the ball. The family should have been given something in return. Another autographed ball and VIP tickets were reasonable. Maybe a chance for the child to throw the first ball in the next game. But it was selfish for the family to not consider what the ball means to the player. It didn’t sound like it was a big deal for the child until the mother got involved. I would be willing to bet that it will end up on e-bay at some point.
The lawyers for the Philadelphia Phillies and Ryan Howard should be required to take ethics courses in order to maintain possession of their bar license. Case law is pretty clear in the area of home run baseballs and it is widely accepted that a baseball belongs to the MLB up until the point of contact with a baseball bat. At that point the ball becomes intentionally abandoned property and the person that first possesses it, or that stops its movement (differs by state) becomes the owner of that property. This would mean that no matter how meaningful the ball is to Howard, it was the legal property of the 12 year old girl that first possessed it.
This legal fact has been acknowledged by several courts, most notably in Popov v. Hayashi, Superior Court, San Francisco County, California. Popov and Hayashi were the two parties involved in the legal dispute over which one owned Barry Bond’s home run ball number 73. Before the court could decide on which one of them owned it, it had to first come to the conclusion that the ball was not the property of any other entity when it entered the stands. This is basic property law and any attorney should be aware of this fact.
From CNN’s article it would seem that the Marlin’s staff member that requested the ball from the minor was seeking to obtain temporary custody of girl’s property. When the Phillies failed to give back the ball, which was property of the minor who only gave the them temporary custody of it, the Phillies were guilty of the tort of conversion. As soon as the girl’s mother hired an attorney and he requested the ball back, the attorneys for the Phillies and Howard should have immediately thought of the applicable laws, and their ethical obligation to uphold those laws. That would have required them to inform their client that the ball was not their property and must be returned to the rightful owner, the 12 yr old girl.
I find it deplorable that it even took the hiring of an attorney on behalf of the girl’s mother to get her daughter’s property back. The Phillies and Ryan Howard may think it’s okay to try and strong-arm a 12 year old girl, but the integrity and professionalism required by the legal profession demands that their attorneys fulfill their ethical obligation and return the ball prior to any suit being filed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants
Check your facts.
the girl’s a moron who probably knows nothing of the value of that baseball to the player, her mother probably even more….she should have been satisfied with the Autographed Ball and the VIP tix to let the man have his milestone, and the Lawyer is the biggest jerk of all of em in my opinion…i never knew it was written in fine print about the laws of Homerun hit balls and who gets the right to keep the ball…she gave it up in the first place, i dont see why she should HAVE to give it back.
I disagree with you. This is just another instance where we are teaching our kids, this time through the legal system, that it’s okay to be selfish. This was a record breaking ball for the player, and he should have gotten to keep it if he wanted it. She should have been given some compensation other than an autographed ball and cotton candy (maybe tickets for the family to future games), but she should have given up the ball. Sentimental reasons? Let’s see how fast that thing gets on eBay…
I realize it takes a lot of hard work and extraordinary talent to be a professional ballplayer. That’s why they get paid the big bucks! How greedy can one person be? Howard is already guaranteed making money from his achievement with future endorsements. Isn’t that enough? I know it was his day to celebrate, but if it weren’t for fans who come to watch them, he wouldn’t make nearly the money he does. For the Phillies to dupe a kid like that and then to have Howard not to even show up to continue in the time honored tradition of signing the ball for free (it really chaps my fanny when ballplayers charge for ball signing), I become really angry.
Because these players are compensated so very well, they are compelled to endure the title of role model. All Mr. Howard has shown this little fan is that money is the most important so he kept the ball and refused to acknowledge the child’s request to have it returned only after duping her. Nice job, Howard and the Phillies. Shame on all of you!
the family was greedy for money. a pro athlete accomplished something that has never been done and cannot have the reward. I think that’s not fair.
Hmm. Didn’t realize the discussion this post had created. Thank you all for reading.
For the record, I think it is fine that Howard wanted the ball – I have no issue with that at all. My problem with the situation was the underhanded way in which they handled it.
If he had gone and met the kid as the team official said he would and traded a couple other pieces of memorabilia for it – as is fairly customary for milestones such as this – I’m guessing the player could have gotten his ball and the kid would have been happy.
As it went down, this was a case of bullying. And while I agree that the court system is the wrong place for this to be handled, I do feel a little bit good about justice being done for the “little guy” in this case.
STRUGZ: My whole point was that if Howard had followed through on what the team rep said he would do he would probably have his ball. The fan gave it up under the agreement that she would get to meet Howard and have the ball signed and returned – you don’t think there’s something wrong with that?
KATE: I stand corrected. I was aware of the original jury award, not aware of the reversal and the settlement that followed, and I also clearly didn’t have the grasp on the facts of the case I thought I did. I regret the error and appreciate your bringing it to my attention.