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

On October 27, 1969, Prosenjit Poddar killed Tatiana Tarasoff. Plaintiffs allege that Poddar was a voluntary outpatient receiving therapy at Cowell Memorial Hospital at the University of California at Berkeley. Poddar informed Moore, his therapist, that he was going to kill an unnamed girl, readily identifiable as Tatiana, when she returned home from spending the summer in Brazil. Moore, with the concurrence of Dr. Gold, who had initially examined Poddar, and Dr. Yandell, assistant to the director of the department of psychiatry, decided that Poddar should be committed for observation in a mental hospital. Moore requested the assistance of the campus police in securing Poddar's confinement.

Officers took Poddar into custody, but, satisfied that Poddar was rational, released him on his promise to stay away from Tatiana. Plaintiffs further allege that defendants negligently permitted Poddar to be released from police custody without "notifying the parents of Tatiana Tarasoff that their daughter was in grave danger from Prosenjit Poddar." Shortly after her return from Brazil, Poddar went to her residence and killed her. Defendants asked the court to dismiss the action claiming there were no legal issues involved. The trial court ruled in defendant's favor and dismissed the plaintiff's claims before trial.

Defendants contend that in the circumstances of the present case they owed no duty of care to Tatiana or her parents and that, in the absence of such duty, they were free to act in careless disregard of Tatiana's life and safety.

Under the common law, as a general rule, one person owes no duty to control the conduct of another (citations), nor to warn those endangered by such conduct. However, the courts have carved out an exception to this rule in cases in which the defendant stands in some special relationship to either the person whose conduct needs to be controlled or in a relationship to the foreseeable victim of that conduct.

Although plaintiffs' pleadings assert no special relation between Tatiana and defendant the rapists, they establish as between Poddar and defendant therapists the special relation that arises between a patient and his doctor or psychotherapist. Such a relationship may support affirmative duties for the benefit of third persons.

In our view, once a therapist does in fact determine, or under applicable professional standards reasonably should have determined, that a patient poses a serious danger of violence to others, he bears a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect the foreseeable victim of that danger. We conclude that 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. Judgment of the superior court is reversed.

1.Do you agree with the court's ruling that a patient's unique relationship with their therapist should entail a duty to a third party?