← All Authorities
United States Leading Case professional negligenceduty of care

Moore v Regents of the University of California

51 Cal.3d 120 (1990)
JurisdictionUnited States
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
Year1990
StatusBinding authority

Summary

A physician has a duty to disclose personal research and economic interests in a patient's biological materials as part of the informed consent obligation.

Key Principle

Physician's duty to disclose research and economic interests in patient's biological materials; informed consent extends to non-therapeutic interests

Area of Law

tort

Related Cases

Bird v DP (A Pseudonym) (2024) 98 ALJR 486

High Court of Australia held a religious organisation vicariously liable for sexual abuse by a priest, recognising a relationship akin to employment sufficient to ground vicarious liability.

Bryant v Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd (2023) 278 CLR 99

High Court of Australia held that the peak indebtedness rule does not apply when assessing unfair preferences under s 588FA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Kozarov v Victoria (2022) 275 CLR 115

An employer owes a duty to take reasonable steps to protect an employee from psychiatric injury caused by vicarious trauma, and may breach that duty by failing to act on obvious warning signs.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Moore v Regents of the University of California and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Moore v Regents of the Univers...