"Woman who lost Ark. lotto ticket entitled to $1M"

Well, first off, she did not "Lose" it....she threw it away.
The Courts have already ruled that when you put something
in your trash, you are relinquishing ownership...
How can this judge rule this way?
I say it's the woman's who found it in the trash.
What say you?

SEE:
http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/new ... y.Lawsuit/

PS: If anyone wants to run a Poll, please feel free to do so -
I'm not sure how to set that up.

yep i agree, she threw it in the trash its not hers anymore end of story.

I guess it depends whether we apply statute law, common-sense law, or simply ethics and morality.......

Technically, I think that it you find something in the trash, it's yours. But--where does this break down? For example, suppose I find a unique and valuable piece of jewelry (or something unique, but valuable only to the owner) I think I have an obligation to try and find the owner.

At the other extreme, I find a penny in the gutter, a $5 bill on the sidewalk, or a lotto ticket in the public trash. Morality and ethics are no longer useful, because I have no way of identifying the rightful owner.

Legally, I cannot go rummaging in trash bins at a private home, business establishment, etc. But, once the trash gets to the dump, you can bet that no-one is going to get keepsakes back to their rightful owners. Does that mean that --morally-- we should go thru people's trash to try to save valuables from the landfill? I don't know.

Yep... another BS story, another BS ruling. When you willingly throw something away, it means that you don't (shouldn't) have second thoughts. The woman's "losing it" is the biggest lie I've ever heard. She did lose it.... in the head!!

"Arkansas Lottery Security Chief Lance Huey testified that he investigated the circumstances of the ticket falling into Jones' hands. He said the lottery was satisfied with the investigation and awarded the prize."

It should've stopped there.

Actually I heard she had signed it after the ticket reader said it was not a winner and put it in the second chance jar. The second woman took a bunch from the jar and turned in the winner with the original buyers name fudged to look like hers on it. From what I see the second woman had no right to the ticket. She stole it from the second chance jar in the store.

Where I live, it would be confiscated as evidence of the County. It's not legal to rummage through trash here anymore. Too many people digging and leaving trash all over. So the person that found it, obtained it while violating the law. But if that law does not exist where the ticket was found, it's the finders.
One of the oldest kids sayings. "Loser weepers, finders keepers."
Either way the judge should have at least ruled as a split.
Dan

Except that she did not throw it out. She put it in the second chance jar with her name on it. The second woman stole it from the jar.

Ok, that actually makes a lot of sense since they're both Sharons. However, that contradicts with everything in the story, testimonials and all. I'm out... too much misinformation here...............

How do you fudge a name so that it can look like Duncan or Jones and not be total chickenscratch? If that were the case, they should have made Duncan sign her name and then compare the signature to the ticket.

The love of money is the root of...

In Virginia at least..it's a "bearer instrument"..
Whoever has possession at time of presentation..or
Finders keepers.
losers weep.

How could she redeem it with someone elses name on it. To protect you that is exactly what they tell you to do.
Dan

Another example of the "Greed Gene." What a species

It's funny when you consider all the money they're blowing on this court round-about. You think this Duncan broad will demand another trial to get her money back from the previous trial AND the current one?

Along these lines, I saw an interesting movie last night:
If you get an opportunity to watch it, I recommend it.

"Changing Lanes".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changing_Lanes

This is a very interesting case - and I'm not sure that there's a clear "right" answer.

While the US Supreme Court has ruled on garbage (California v Greenwood, a case of some interest to me in times past) that case concerned privacy rights, rather than possessory interest.

A quick google turned up a number of cases in lower courts concerning the latter. Most of them appeared to hold that the owner of the garbage can retains title to the contents until they pass into the possession of the garbage collector.

I'm not familiar with Arkansas law on possessory interest and abandonment, but if it follows that model one might reasonably conclude that title to the ticket passed from the woman who bought it to the owner of the store, when she threw it in the trash. When the second woman took the ticket from the trash that was either (a) theft, if she did so without permission or (b) a transfer of possesory interest, if she did so with permission.

It seems to me, then, that the case hinges on the circumstances surrounding the removal of the ticket from the trash and, while there may be no clear right answer, it does seem clear that the original purchaser abandoned title to the ticket, making this judges ruling most definitely the wrong answer.

Never saw that movie and never heard of it. I will keep an eye out for it though !

Nowadays every two-bit corner stores sells lottery tickets but in the 80s we had only one place in town, a filling station where the pump jockey was a mentally challenged, legally blind man. Apparently he picked up quite a bit of spare change over the years by going through every ticket that was thrown in the trash can.

If it came out of that second chance jar, I agree with the way this case was settled. If it were the trash can, I think it would be fair game for anybody though I would maybe side with the storeowner claiming it.

Where does it say, "second chance jar"?

IMHO, once the first woman threw the ticket away, it became "public domain" material.

The first couple of stories I read on-line about it when the hearing was in progress. This one does not give as much of the details.

It's sort of a moot point now anyway. Between the lawyers and taxes there won't be enough of that million left to worry about