In other words, neither the Supreme Court ruling in Tarasoff, nor the subsequent “immunity” legislation required (imposed a duty) that therapists notify the police and make reasonable effort to notify the potential victim, but to repeat, under the “immunity” statute, if a therapist takes those two actions she or he is to have immunity from liability. Similar cases in the wake of Tarasoff eventually led to strong objection to such legal expectations. However, in this case, the facts described the Tarasoff‐type warning, not as a warning of the danger, but of the verbal threat. The duty to protect carries broader implications and Regents of University of California. Recent events have revived questions about the circumstances that ought to trigger therapists’ duty to warn or protect.

This article reviews courts' analyses in 76 such cases. The intricacies of Tarasoff involve so many variables, from state to state, scenario to scenario, case to case. Since the first such statute was enacted in California in 1985, a significant number of courts in states with this and similar statutes have reviewed Tarasoff-type claims. Facts: On October 27, 1969, Prosenjit Poddar killed Tatiana Tarasoff. Since the time of Hippocrates, the extent of patients' right to confidentiality has been a topic of debate, with some arguing for total openness and others for absolute and unconditional secrecy ().In Tarasoff v.Regents of the University of California (1976), the California Supreme Court held that mental health providers have an obligation to protect persons who could be harmed by a patient. 1976), including the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, key terms, and concurrences and dissents. Although the authors are correct in noting the precedent-setting value of Tarasoff, the dissimilarities between Tarasoff and Seth’s case are so numerous as to suggest the selection of another paradigm. The unique circumstances of Tarasoff include the imminence of fatal harm to an identified, yet unsuspecting, individual. In Tarasoff the duty is based on the relationship to the harm-doer. The duty to inform implies a similar action, but it has been used in the context of an obligation to inform the potential victim, the police, or the courts. The Tarasoff decision, as it is presently interpreted, raises a set of questions that may be problematic from both medical and legal standpoints. They allege that on Moore's request, the campus police briefly detained Poddar, but released him when he appeared rational. Tarasoff (e.g., warn versus protect, permissive versus mandatory). • Development of more validated risk-assessment tools would assist mental health professions in their decision making, enabling preservation of the integ - rity of the provider-patient relationship and minimizing the risk of legal liability. Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California. Tarasoff v. Regents (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425, 131 Cal.Rptr. Court Responses to Tarasoff Statutes Claudia Kachigian, MD, JD, and Alan R. Felthous, MD Twenty-three states have enacted Tarasoff statutes applicable to psychiatrists. However, beginning with Tarasoff in 1974 and 197611,14, the idea that physicians may have a duty to breach confidentiality when third parties are at risk began to influence the practice of medicine, especially psychiatry. A summary and case brief of Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 551 P.2d 334 (Cal. similar legislation that would replace the federal act, e.g. Some have suggested that once a threat has been made, "there is generally little a victim can do unless the threat is imminent" and that "warning sometimes can inflame the situation and increase the danger" ( 7 ). Since the first such statute was enacted in California in 1985, a significant number of courts in states with this and similar …
increase it.) There is extensive interstate variation in duty to warn or protect statutes enacted and rulings made in the wake of the California 1976), a doctor may be held liable if he fails to warn or disclose his patient's threats against a specific, identifiable third … The case involved a patient with schizophrenia who killed another man in a motor vehicle crash. Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California. Plaintiffs, Tatiana's parents, allege that two months earlier Poddar confided his intention to kill Tatiana to Dr. Lawrence Moore, a psychologist. The Tarasoff case is based on the 1969 murder of a university student named Tatiana Tarasoff. Posted on October 2, ... under similar circumstances. Second, the Wilschinsky court noted, under the line of cases stemming from Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 551 P.2d 334 (Cal. Unlike Tarasoff, where the patient had made an unequivocal threat to murder a given individual, the patient in McIntosh had never threatened to harm the eventual victim, and thus, it had never occurred to the psychiatrist that the victim was even in danger. Although other states could conceivably adopt a similar standard, the ruling does not establish a legal precedent outside of Washington.