--- title: "Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California" type: Landmark Case source: https://casebriefly.com/landmark-cases/tarasoff-v-regents-of-uc --- # Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California Tarasoff established the duty of mental health professionals to protect identifiable third parties from serious harm threatened by their patients. The court's famous holding that the protective privilege ends where the public peril begins created a landmark duty to warn or protect that has been adopted in some form by the vast majority of American jurisdictions. ## Citation 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334 (1976) ## Year 1976 ## Court Supreme Court of California ## Facts Prosenjit Poddar, a graduate student at UC Berkeley, confided to his psychologist, Dr. Lawrence Moore, at the university counseling center that he intended to kill Tatiana Tarasoff, a fellow student who had rejected his romantic advances. Dr. Moore notified campus police, who briefly detained Poddar but released him when he appeared rational. No warning was given to Tarasoff or her family. Two months later, Poddar killed Tarasoff. ## Procedural History Tarasoff's parents sued the university, the therapist, and the campus police. The trial court dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court of California reversed, initially holding that therapists have a duty to warn, and on rehearing, broadening the holding to a duty to protect. ## Issue Whether a psychotherapist who knows or should know that a patient poses a serious danger of violence to an identifiable third party has a duty to warn or protect that individual. ## Holding The court held that when a therapist determines, or pursuant to the standards of the profession should determine, that a patient presents a serious danger of violence to a foreseeable victim, the therapist incurs an obligation to use reasonable care to protect the intended victim against such danger. This duty may be discharged by warning the intended victim, notifying the police, or taking other reasonable steps. The protective privilege of therapist-patient confidentiality ends where the public peril begins. ## Reasoning The court reasoned that the special relationship between a therapist and patient creates a duty of care extending to identifiable third parties threatened by the patient. Drawing on the general principle that one who is in a special relationship with a dangerous person may owe a duty to third parties, the court held that therapists must balance patient confidentiality against public safety. The court rejected the argument that imposing such a duty would deter patients from seeking treatment, finding that the risk of violence to identifiable victims outweighed the potential impact on the therapeutic relationship. The court emphasized that the public policy favoring protection of life outweighs the policy favoring confidentiality in communications. ## Dissent Justice Clark dissented, arguing that the duty to warn would undermine the therapeutic relationship, deter patients from seeking treatment, and discourage therapists from treating potentially dangerous patients. He contended that the duty was unworkable because therapists cannot reliably predict violent behavior and that the majority's ruling would ultimately cause more harm than it prevented. ## Impact Tarasoff is one of the most influential tort cases of the twentieth century. Nearly every state has adopted some form of the Tarasoff duty, either through judicial decisions or legislation, though the scope of the duty varies significantly by jurisdiction. The case fundamentally changed the practice of psychotherapy and created an ongoing tension between patient confidentiality and the duty to protect. It has been extended in some jurisdictions to other professionals and relationships where one party has knowledge of a foreseeable risk to identifiable third parties. ## Key Quotes - The protective privilege ends where the public peril begins. - When a therapist determines, or pursuant to the standards of his profession should determine, that his patient presents a serious danger of violence to another, he incurs an obligation to use reasonable care to protect the intended victim against such danger. - The public policy favoring protection of the confidential character of patient-psychotherapist communications must yield to the extent to which disclosure is essential to avert danger to others. The protective privilege ends where the public peril begins. ## Related Cases - palsgraf-v-long-island-railroad - dillon-v-legg - macpherson-v-buick-motor-co - thing-v-la-chusa ## Exam Relevance Tarasoff is tested extensively on exams, particularly in questions about special relationships and the duty to act. Students should be prepared to analyze when a duty to warn or protect arises, who qualifies as a foreseeable victim, and what steps satisfy the duty. It also appears in questions about the limits of duty and the tension between confidentiality and public safety. ## Study Tips - Know the elements of the Tarasoff duty: a special relationship, knowledge of a serious threat, and an identifiable victim. - Understand the difference between the initial 'duty to warn' holding and the broader 'duty to protect' from the rehearing. - Be prepared to discuss the policy tension between patient confidentiality and public safety. - Know that the scope of Tarasoff varies by jurisdiction — some states limit it to identifiable victims, others extend it to foreseeable victims, and some have legislatively modified the duty. ## Doctrine Established Duty to Warn/Protect Identifiable Third Parties --- Source: [Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California — CaseBriefly](https://casebriefly.com/landmark-cases/tarasoff-v-regents-of-uc)