Detailed Explanation

Gone in the Hilton! implicates the following six laws.

1.Generally, loose money is standard and has no unique identifying features [Choshen Mishpat 262: 6, 11, 13] [See Issue 52]. Yet, money lost in wallet will benefit from the identifying features of the wallet and the contents thereof [Choshen Mishpat 262: 20].

2.The responsibility to reunite the article with its loser requires the finder to safeguard the article. The finder becomes a bailee or a custodian thereof and is liable to reimburse the loser for damage or loss due to negligence, yet is not accountable for inadvertent damages or loss due [Choshen Mishpat 267: 17 Sm"a, Shach].  [For more information regarding custodial responsibilities, please see Issues 24, Fellow Weekly Special Edition - The Case of the Baffled Babysitter (Part 2), 26, 33, 47, 49 some of which may be viewed on RabbiHorowitz.com and Aish.com].

3.Protecting a fellow from an impending financial loss is as much Hashavat Aveidah as returning an object of book value [Choshen Mishpat 259: 9]

4. A foremost consideration is the environment where the article was lost. Generally, an owner will despair from retrieving an article lost amidst a society inattentive to the laws of Hashavat Aveidah. Consequently, one may keep an article found in such an environment irrespective of whether it bears identifying features[Choshen Mishpat 259:3] [See Issue 50].

5. It is important to note that finding an identifiable article in an area frequented mostly by non-Hashavat Aveidah observant individuals is not a free license to keep the article. Although the owner will probably despair upon discovering the loss, and as such, the finder need not publicize the find, if the owner does actually produce identifying details, it is noble and morally correct for the finder to return the article to its original owner. One is required to fulfill It is a Mitzvah to follow this "noble route" of being "straight and good"[Devarim 6: 18] [See Issues 50, 51, 52, 53].

6. When returning an article to fulfill the mitzvah of acting straight and good, one does not bear custodial responsibilities of the item thereof [ Shulchan Aruch HaRav: Hilchos Metzia].

♦

Application:

To hold Reiss liable for the wallet and all of its contents, one would have to prove the following three points.
 1) Reiss was required to return the entire find to Martins and
     2) Consequently became a legal custodian of the entire find.
 
3) Forgetting the wallet on the podium was negligence on his part and not an accident.
 
That money is generally unidentifiable and that a Drivers license lacks legal book value is insufficient grounds to indemnify Reiss from returning the money and license to Martins. The money is identifiable through the wallet and identifiable objects therein. While the license has no legal book value, returning it to the rightful owner protects Martins from having to purchase a new license, which is a form of Hashavat Aveidah.
 
Nevertheless, we will indemnify Reiss on two grounds.

1) While there is strong premise to maintain otherwise, there is sufficient evidence to reason that pressured for time, forgetting the wallet on the podium at the end of a lecture is an accident and not a form of negligence. As strong evidence exists on both sides of the argument, a court would not insist that Reiss pay Martins for the resulting loss [Pischei Choshen: Hilchos Pikadon 3:4]

2) Reiss found the wallet in the Limousine he hired from Newark Airport. We can reasonably assume that the majority of people utilizing Limousine services from Newark Airport are not Hashavat Aveidah observers. Consequently, presumably Martins despairs from retrieving his wallet albeit the existence of clear indentifying features. As such, while Reiss is required to fulfill the mitzvah of acting straight and good and pursuing Martins, the letter of the Hashavat Aveidah law does not require him to do so. As such, pursuing such appropriate course would not impose the general custodial responsibilities of Hashavat Aveidah performers on Reiss. Thus, even if Reiss would have been unquestionably negligent in guarding Martins wallet, he is indemnified from any liabilities thereof.