Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California
Citation: 17 Cal. 3d 425 (Cal. 1976)
Facts
Prosenjit Poddar, a student receiving outpatient psychiatric treatment at UC Berkeley, told his therapist he intended to kill Tatiana Tarasoff. The therapist notified campus police, who detained Poddar briefly but then released him. The therapist’s supervisor ordered no further action. Two months later, Poddar killed Tarasoff. Her parents sued the Regents, arguing the therapists should have warned Tarasoff directly.
Issue
Does a therapist who determines that a patient poses a serious danger of violence to an identifiable third party have a duty to use reasonable care to protect that third party?
Holding
The California Supreme Court held that once a therapist determines, or should have determined under professional standards, that a patient poses a serious and imminent threat to an identifiable victim, the therapist has a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect that person — which may include warning the intended victim.
Rule
When a special relationship (here, therapist-patient) gives rise to a foreseeable risk of harm to an identifiable third party, the duty of care extends to that third party. The protective privilege of confidentiality ends where public peril begins.
Significance
Tarasoff is the landmark case establishing a mental health professional’s duty to warn identifiable potential victims of a patient’s violent threats. It extends duty-of-care analysis to third parties outside the therapist-patient relationship, balancing confidentiality against public safety. The case prompted most states to enact Tarasoff-type duty-to-warn statutes, often with varying scope.