Final answer:
The defendant's argument likely rests on whether Pivowar has well-established property rights that have been infringed upon without compensation. Without clear property rights, no deprivation can be claimed.
Step-by-step explanation:
The defendant's argument regarding why Pivowar has not been deprived of any property revolves around the concept of property rights as explained by Coase. The core of this argument is that in order to determine whether Pivowar has been deprived of property, it is essential to ascertain whether a clear legal responsibility and ownership rights have been established either for the farmer or the railroad.
If such rights are not clear, and neither party has a property right, there can be no claim of deprivation, as ownership and the responsibilities that come with it are undefined. However, if property rights are well-defined, the party with the ownership would then be responsible for finding and funding a solution to prevent damage, such as sparks from a train setting a field ablaze.