That article seems to leave out the facts of exactly how the 2nd woman found and cashed in the ticket, as well as how she found out it was a winner-- not the least circumstance of which is whether she knew it was a big winner, and if that if why she went through trash (who's and where?) to retrieve it.
I thought at first this would be a case of "unjust enrichment," which I remember from Business Law is a legal fiction to keep a person from profiting substantially from another person who didn't know he or she had something of value the other person used to obtain money or benefits. That was illustrated by a simple story of someone having a great recipe which he or she gives to someone else who requests it, then the receipient markets the recipe profitably. The first person, whose original recipe it was, can then claim part of that profit based on unjust enrichment. While I'm not a jurist, this theory seems to contradict other aspects of legal proceedings; such as, judges have been known to include in their opinions that they can't award damages "just because I feel sorry for you" or "it didn't seem fair" if there is no definitive obligation.
But this case does not seem to be one of those type, but rather about the one who apparently was victimized by false information claiming everything, while some of the pertinent facts are left out of the article.
