Moore v. Regents of the University of California, 51 Cal. 3d 120, 271 Cal. Rptr. 146, 793 P.2d 479 (Cal. 1990)
Moore v. Regents is a landmark California Supreme Court decision at the intersection of property law, torts, and bioethics.
Does a patient retain a property interest in excised cells that supports a tort claim for conversion when those cells are used for commercial research, and did the physician breach duties by failing to disclose personal research and financial interests that could influence medical judgment?
Conversion requires the plaintiff's ownership or right to possession in the personal property at issue. Under California law, a patient does not retain a property interest in excised cells sufficient to sustain conversion, particularly given statutory and policy considerations governing human tissues and the public interest in biomedical research. Separately, a physician owes fiduciary duties and must obtain informed consent, which includes disclosing personal interests unrelated to the patient's health that may affect professional judgment; nondisclosure of such conflicts can constitute breach of fiduciary duty and lack of informed consent.
The court held that Moore had no property interest in his excised cells to support a conversion claim; thus, the conversion cause of action failed. However, Moore adequately stated causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and lack of informed consent based on Dr. Golde's failure to disclose research and financial interests; those claims could proceed.
Moore is foundational for understanding how courts cabin property claims in human biological materials while emphasizing fiduciary and informed-consent doctrines to police conflicts of interest. It shapes institutional practices in biobanking and research, encourages transparent conflict disclosures by clinicians-scientists, and influences debates over commodification and patient participation in the value derived from their tissues. For law students, the case is a crucial study in the tension between individual rights, doctrinal coherence in property/torts, and innovation policy in biotechnology.