Tararsoff v. Regents of the University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425 (1976) p140.

duty; reasonable care

Poddar was seeing a UC psychologist and he told the psychologist that he planned to kill Tatiana Tarasoff. There was an effort to detain Poddar but he was soon released. Poddar then killed Tatiana.

Trial court dismissed the suit brought against the therapists.

Did the psychologist owe a duty to tell authorities about client's intention to murder?

Although there may be confidentiality clauses, when a person knows that another is going to be violent, there is a duty to others to warn of the potential danger.

The therapists determined that Poddar presented a serious danger of violence to Tatiana, but nevertheless failed to exercise reasonable care to protect her from that danger.

There is a difficulty in forecasting whether a patient presents a serious danger of violence, but the therapist must exercise best judgement without liability. In this case however, the therapist did in fact predict Poddar would kill, but was negligent in failing to warn. Once this is determined, the therapist bears a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect the foreseeable victim of that danger.

restatement says a special relationship between the actor and the third person imposes a duty upon the actor to control the third person's conduct, or between the actor and the other which gives to the other a right of protection.

dissent: patient/therapist relations are essential to be confidential. Also therapists will be tempted to give warning in excess.