17 Cal. 3d 425, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14, 551 P.2d 334 (Cal. 1976)
Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (Tarasoff II) is one of the most influential tort decisions of the twentieth century.
Do psychotherapists who, consistent with professional standards, determine that a patient poses a serious danger of violence to another owe a legal duty to use reasonable care to protect the foreseeable victim of that danger, and are defendants shielded by confidentiality rules or governmental immunities?
When a therapist determines, or pursuant to the standards of the profession should determine, that a patient presents a serious danger of violence to another, the therapist incurs an obligation to use reasonable care to protect the foreseeable victim of that danger. Discharging this duty may require one or more measures reasonably necessary under the circumstances, including warning the intended victim or those likely to apprise the victim of the danger, notifying law enforcement, or taking other steps (such as initiating involuntary commitment) to reduce the risk. The psychotherapist-patient privilege yields in situations of public peril; confidentiality does not bar disclosures reasonably necessary to prevent threatened violence. Statutory governmental immunities may protect certain decisions by public employees (e.g., decisions about detention/release and provision of police protection), but do not categorically bar claims against therapists for negligent failure to protect once a serious risk is or should be recognized.
Yes. The California Supreme Court held that the psychotherapist defendants owed Tatiana a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect her once they determined, or should have determined, that Poddar posed a serious danger of violence to her. The court reversed the dismissal of the negligence claims against the therapist defendants (including the Regents). As to the campus police, the court affirmed dismissal, concluding that statutory immunities barred claims related to their detention-and-release decisions and that no independent duty to warn supported liability on these facts.
Tarasoff II is a cornerstone torts decision on duty formation, especially in cases involving third-party criminal conduct. It establishes that special relationships can create affirmative duties to act and that such duties may extend to identifiable third parties at risk. The case also teaches how courts balance foreseeability and public policy against competing values like confidentiality, and it clarifies that professional duties evolve with community expectations of reasonable care. Beyond torts, Tarasoff informs mental health law, evidence (privilege exceptions), and professional ethics, and it spurred statutory responses in California and other jurisdictions, some expanding and others limiting the duty to protect or warn.