University:
Santa Ana College
Course:
CJ 109 | Community Interaction
Academic year:

2022
Views:

462

Pages:

1
Author:

Alexa Livingston

Moore v. Regents of the University of California Supreme Court of California 793 P.2d 479 (1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 936 (1991) Facts Moore was undergoing treatment for leukemia at Medical Center of University of California at Los Angeles. During treatment, without informing Moore, doctor took some of T-lymphocyte cells to use for research. Based on these cells, doctors developed a cell line from Moore’s cells (called the Mo cell line) and obtained patent for it. Procedural History Moore sued for damages on 13 causes of actions, including conversion. Trial court sustained defendant’s demurrers and Court of Appeals reversed. Issue Presented Should the tort of conversion be extended to protect human cells? Arguments Presented Rule To sue for conversion, party must have retained an ownership interest in the object. Reasoning There is no precedent for biological materials to be personal property. Lymphokines are the same to every person and not unique to Moore in any way. CA statutory law drastically limits continuing interests of persons in excised cells; and the patent obtained was from cells is distinct from the T-cells that the doctors took from Moore. The patent law is rewarding the inventiveness, not the physical materials, so Moore does not own the cell line. Don’t want to limit scientific research on these cells. Conversion is a strict liability tort, so extending to these cells would hold innocent parties handling the cells without knowledge of where they came from liable. Holding Using cells is not conversion. Judgement Not conversion; breach of fiduciary duty or lack of informed consent.

Moore v Regents Case

Related Documents

Description

Related Documents

Almost There!

Free up your schedule!

Take 5 seconds to unlock