Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 551 P.2d 334 (Cal. 1976)

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 intended victim.

Summary

This landmark case established a therapist’s duty to protect third parties from a patient’s threatened violence. Prosenjit Poddar, a patient, informed his therapist at the University of California that he intended to kill Tatiana Tarasoff. The therapist informed the police, who briefly detained Poddar but released him. No one warned Tarasoff or her family. Poddar later killed Tarasoff. Her parents sued, alleging the therapists and the University had a duty to warn Tatiana. The California Supreme Court held that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals from a patient’s credible threats of violence, even if it means breaching patient confidentiality.

Facts

Prosenjit Poddar was a patient at the University of California, Berkeley’s counseling center. He told his therapist, Dr. Lawrence Moore, that he intended to kill Tatiana Tarasoff. Dr. Moore, believing Poddar was a danger to Tarasoff, contacted the police. The police interviewed Poddar, who appeared rational, and released him. Dr. Moore’s supervisor directed that no further action be taken to detain Poddar. Neither Dr. Moore nor anyone else warned Tarasoff or her family about Poddar’s threats. Poddar subsequently killed Tarasoff.

Procedural History

Tarasoff’s parents sued the Regents of the University of California, the therapists, and the police. The trial court dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs appealed, and the California Supreme Court initially reversed, finding a duty to warn. After a rehearing, the court modified its ruling, establishing a duty to protect. The case was remanded for trial.

Issue(s)

Whether a therapist has a duty to protect a third party from a patient’s threats of violence, even when doing so requires breaching patient confidentiality?

Holding

Yes, because when a therapist determines, or 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 intended victim. This duty may be discharged by warning the intended victim, warning others likely to apprise the victim of the danger, notifying the police, or taking other steps reasonably necessary under the circumstances.

Court’s Reasoning

The court balanced the importance of patient confidentiality with the public interest in safety from violence. The court acknowledged the therapist’s duty to act with reasonable care to protect the intended victim, reasoning that “the protective privilege ends where the public peril begins.” The court stated, “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 discharge of this duty may require the therapist to take one or more of various steps, depending upon the nature of the case. Thus, it may call for him to warn the intended victim or others likely to apprise the victim of the danger, to notify the police, or to take whatever other steps are reasonably necessary under the circumstances.” The court emphasized that the therapist’s actions must be reasonable under the circumstances and consistent with the standards of the profession. The court rejected the argument that imposing such a duty would unduly burden therapists or undermine the therapeutic relationship. The dissenting justices argued that the ruling would create an unworkable standard for therapists and would compromise patient confidentiality, thus hindering effective treatment.