In American law Finder gets the thing if it is lost owner gets it if it is

In american law finder gets the thing if it is lost

This preview shows page 17 - 19 out of 70 pages.

In American law: Finder gets the thing if it is lost, owner gets it if it is mislaid VALUES SUBJECT TO OWNERSHIP (III-1) Personhood o Whether there are certain interests that are inappropriate for treatment as property because they are too closely connected to personhood. o Property and the Human Body Newman v. Sathyavaglswaran (III-2) (coroner removed the child’s corneas without the notification of consent of parents) Held that States must provide due process of law to parents before removing the corneas o Under current California law, the coroner can only remove corneas if the consent form was issued by the donor or was obtained by next of kin o The burden is on the state to provide notice to the next of kin o The question is whether the next of kin have a property interest in the corneas, regardless of them being labeled “quasi-property” o Dissent: caring for deceased is a duty not a right Moore v. Regents of the University of California (III-12) (D treated P and told P that he will remove his spleen and use it for research. Did not tell him that the cells from the spleen could be worth a lot of money. P sued for conversion and breach of disclosure duty by physician) Held that Conversion - a tort that protects against interference with possessory and ownership interest in personal property
Image of page 17
A person does not have property rights in his spleen following its removal from his body o To establish conversion, P must establish an actual interference with his ownership or rights of possession P did not intent to retain possession of his spleen must prove ownership of what they donated after the donation CA law does not support the premise that a donor retains ownership of what is removed Has a right to sue the doctors for failure to disclose their economic interest in the spleen Hecht v. Superior Court (III-25) (O died and in his will left his sperm to P. O’s family wanted the sperm destroyed. Lower court ordered the sperm destroyed. P appealed.) held that Sperm deposited in a sperm bank is the property of the donor and could be devised by will o Frozen embryo is neither a person nor property but is entitled special respect because of the potential for human life – in dispute, party that wants to have child prevails over destructors unless party wants to donate, then destructors prevail o It is not decided whether sperm is propoperty o Artists’ Moral Rights (III-33) Should artists retain some control over the use their creations are put by future owners? Moakley v. Eastwick (P, artist, sues D, church, for unauthorized demolition of a mosaic created by P.) Held that Art Preservation Act Moral rights of artists derives from protecting artist’s reputation.
Image of page 18
Image of page 19

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture