DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Kanagaroo Kort
HTML https://kangarookort.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Property
*****************************************************
#Post#: 11--------------------------------------------------
Moore v. Regents of the University of California
By: kangaroo Date: January 26, 2011, 6:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
FACTS: The plaintiff sought treatment for hairy-cell leukemia
at the Medical Center of the University of California, Los
Angeles in 1976. After conducting several tests using blood and
tissue samples, the defendants stated that the plaintiff’s
spleen needed to be removed. The plaintiff consented to the
splenectomy and to approximately seven years of future tests
that he thought was standard for his treatment. The defendants
obtained the plaintiff’s spleen for research without the
plaintiff’s knowledge or consent. Also for research purposes,
the defendants also extracted samples of blood, tissues, and
other fluids from the unknowing plaintiff during each of the
follow-up visits. A cell line was then developed from the
plaintiff’s cell’s for which the defendants received a patent
and proceeded to enter into several marketable agreements.
Initially, these agreements afforded the defendants hundreds of
thousands of dollars, with the estimate that future revenue
would reach the billions.
In 1984, Moore sued for damages stating causes of action
including conversion, lack of informed consent, breach of
fiduciary duty, fraud and deceit, unjust enrichment, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, negligent misrepresentation,
and others.
Claims
-
-
(1)
property of another for their own purposes or alters or destroys
it. In an action for conversion, the taking of the property may
be lawful, but the retaining of the property is unlawful.
(2)
parts) really fall under the law of conversion?? If it doesn’t,
should we extend the law to make is included?
(3)
(1)
finding a property rights in cells (If we are going to create a
new law, we need to proceed with caution)
(2)
of a patient in excised cells (after cells have been used in an
operation, they are supposed to be destroyed b/c of public
safety, not b/c of property rights…court says that the statute
is for promoting public health)
(3)
Moore’s original cells
-
Problems: Propertization/Commodification of Humanity
Tail of Liability
Short—Personal injury
Medium—Unjust Enrichment
- Unjust enrichment means when a person unfairly gets a
benefit by chance, mistake or another's misfortune for which the
one enriched has not paid or worked and morally and ethically
should not keep.
- A person who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of
another must legally return the unfairly kept money or benefits.
- Unjust enrichment is an equitable doctrine applied in the
absence of a contract and used to prevent one person from being
unjustly enriched at another's expense
Longer—Property liability
Accession v. Creation of New Property
-
(14)
Parallel Ideas:
(1)
intentionally relinquish their right, title, and interest to the
property provided they intended to abandon the property and
there is some evidence of that intent (1st person to assert
dominion over abandoned property has ownership)—Mere nonuse of
property is NOT abandonment, you CANNOT abandon a possessory
interest in land, a nonpossessory interest in land CAN be
abandoned.
(2)
without any authority goes on someone elses land and cuts down a
walnut tree. The person who cut it down takes it back to his
shop and makes a very expensive pipe organ. Does the owner of
the land now own the pipe organ?? (NO) b/c the item was
transformed (transformation has to be profound and the value has
to be dramatically increased)…but the transformer MUST pay the
original owner the value of the original tree. APPLIES EVEN IN
THE PRESENCE OF THEFT.
PROCEDURAL FACTS: The trial court sustained the defendants’
demurrers to the conversion cause of action. Ruling that the
plaintiff had sufficiently stated a cause of action for
conversion, the court of appeals reversed.
ISSUE: Did the plaintiff state an adequate claim for conversion
based on the fact that the defendants used his cells to create a
marketable cell line? As a result of the defendants’ failure to
inform the plaintiff that his bodily fluids and cells would be
used for medical research, can the plaintiff collect damages
from the defendants by claiming breach of fiduciary duty?
RULE:
(1)
plaintiff must show an interference with his right of
possession. If the plaintiff cannot prove ownership or
possession, he cannot state a cause of action for conversion.
(2)
physician prior to all medical procedures and medical research.
ANALYSIS: As far as the claim of conversion is concerned, the
court stated that the use of human cells for research for
conversion liability has never been judicially documented. If
conversion is to be extended, it is the Court’s firm belief that
the legislature should make that decision. According to the
court, the parties’ briefs, the Court of Appeal’s opinion, and
further research failed to present even a single holding in
which a person retains an adequate interest in extricated cells.
The Court does believe, however, that it was the duty of the
plaintiff’s physician to properly inform and receive consent
from the plaintiff before any of his information or bodily
fluids and tissues were used for the purpose of medical
research.
CONCLUSION: The plaintiff had no property rights to his
discarded cells; therefore, a cause for conversion cannot be
recognized. However, the physician clearly did not obtain
consent before using the plaintiff’s cells for research or
profit, therefore the plaintiff is entitled to bring a claim
against him.
CONCURRING (Justice Arabian): Justice Arabian concurred with the
views of the majority but stated that there were moral,
philosophical, and religious values at stake in this case that
could not be determined by the Court. He stated that the Court
should not decide whether the plaintiff’s cells should be
recognized as property susceptible to conversion.
DISSENTING (Justice Mosk): Contrary to the majority’s opinion,
Justice Mosk stated that the plaintiff did state a cause of
action for conversion. According to Mosk, the plaintiff should
have at least had the opportunity to take his cells and contract
with researchers and pharmaceutical companies just as the
defendants did. Mosk stated that it is both inequitable and
immoral for the plaintiff not to receive any proceeds from this
cell line.
*****************************************************