What Mothra Can Teach Us About Property Rights

0
3428

Ownership is having the exclusive control over property. (See, Bouvier Law Dictionary – Ownership (Owner or Own). In the 1964 Ishirō Honda classic Mothra vs Godzilla, the issue of property ownership was a battle worthy of those Kaiju titans. The film opens with a typhoon washing Mothra’s egg on Infant Island out to sea. Fishermen off Kurada beach recovered the egg. The local villagers claimed the egg was theirs and sold it to Happy Enterprises, who planned to build an amusement park around the egg. Twin fairies known as Shobijin later tell the proprietor of Happy Enterprises the egg belongs to Mothra…who promptly ignored the Shobijin and attempted to buy them.

As a preliminary matter, the real monster in this movie is Happy Enterprises. The cruel entrepreneur missed the memo you can’t buy PEOPLE. The question remains, who is the rightful owner of the egg?

Mothra’s egg was originally on Infant Island. Lost property is property that an “owner no longer possesses because of accident, negligence, or carelessness, and that cannot be located by an ordinary, diligent search.” Black’s Law Dictionary iPad App. Property can be lost by an act of man, act of law, or act of God. (See, Bouvier Law Dictionary – Property, paragraph 9.) The storm washing the egg out to sea is an act of God that caused Mothra to be separated from her egg. Wild animals not in captivity or tamed become the property of those who take or kill it. Forestier v. Johnson 164 Cal. 24 (Cal. Oct. 1, 1912). The local fisherman who retrieved the egg from the sea have a colorable argument that they found a wild animal and claimed it as their own, just as they would from fishing. As such, there is a plausible argument that the sale was valid. However, that analysis is extremely shortsighted in a world with giant moths.

A person who finds lost property under circumstances which give them knowledge of who is the true owner, and they fail to make a reasonable attempt to find the owner, and takes the property as their own, is guilty of theft. Cal. Penal Code § 485. Moreover, if the property owner is unknown and the value of the property is over $100, the finder shall report the information to law enforcement. The report is to include how the property was saved; whether the owner is known; and the finder has not withheld any of the property. Law enforcement is to then notify the owner. Cal Civ Code § 2080.1.

The fishing village sold the egg to Happy Enterprises for 1,224,560 yen. The price was calculated on the cost of regular chicken eggs at 8 yen and that the egg totaled 153,820 chicken eggs. If the cost of a dozen large chicken eggs in Japan is 304 yen, or 25.3 yen per egg, then the modern valuation of the giant egg would be 3,896,773.33 yen or $34,478.77. Considering the potential property damage that could be caused by whatever comes out of a giant egg, this seems like a bad deal to incur liability.

Giant eggs require a giant mother. Taking into account this is a world with monsters that breathe atomic fire, anyone wanting to purchase a monster egg is extremely foolish. They are ignoring the fact that mom might come looking for her kid.

The Shobijin told Jiro Torahata and Kumayama of Happy Enterprises that egg belonged to them and Mothra was the mother. The reaction by Torahata and Kumayama was to capture the Shobijin and later attempt to buy them. Despite being warned that when the egg hatched, the larva would cause property damage looking for food, Happy Enterprises refused to return the egg.

Jiro Torahata and Kumayama created extreme risk for Happy Enterprises. The first is that Torahata and Kumayama refused to return the egg to the rightful owners after learning their identity. This is larceny, the taking of another’s person property. CA Pen. Code, sec. 484. The other is that keepers of wild animals on their property must ensure to their peril that the animals do no damage to others. Hyde v. Utica, 20 N.Y.S.2d 335, 337 (App. Div. 1940). As soon as the egg hatched, Happy Enterprises was strictly liable for any of the damage caused by the larva. It is a fair to say the damages would exceed 1,224,560 yen.

Leave a Reply