Torts
17 Cal. 3d 425, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14, 551 P.2d 334 (Cal. 1976)
Study notes for Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (Tarasoff II): professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
Psychotherapists owe a duty to protect foreseeable victims when a patient poses a serious danger of violence.
In Tarasoff II, the California Supreme Court expanded the duty of care for psychotherapists, emphasizing the importance of public safety over patient confidentiality when a clear threat to an identifiable victim is present. The case establishes that when a therapist reasonably believes a patient poses a serious danger to others, the therapist must take reasonable steps to protect the foreseeable victim, marking a significant shift in the approach to therapist-patient confidentiality. Professors might emphasize both the legal and ethical implications of this decision on the practice of psychotherapy and the need for mental health professionals to balance confidentiality with protective duties.
TARASOFF: Threat Assessment Requires Alerting Sufficient Others For safety.
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| Jablonski v. United States | Unlike Tarasoff, Jablonski involved a duty to control dangerous individuals rather than a duty to warn third parties. |
| Doe v. Taylor Independent School District | Doe involved school officials’ failure to act upon knowledge of an imminent threat, contrasting with the therapist’s duty to warn. |
| Skelton v. McHale | In Skelton, the focus was on emergency response protocols, differing from the specific therapist-patient relationship in Tarasoff. |
Enhanced public safety by allowing potential victims to be warned and protected from violence.
May deter individuals from seeking mental health treatment due to fear of confidentiality breaches.
This case often appears on exams as a landmark decision in tort law concerning negligence and duty to warn. Be familiar with the implications of the ruling and its relevance to confidentiality in therapy settings.