Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California

Supreme Court of California · 1976 · Torts

dutynegligencespecial relationshipsthird party liabilitygovernmental immunitytherapist dutyduty to warnspecial relationship

Facts

Plaintiffs alleged that two months before killing Tatiana Tarasoff, Prosenjit Poddar told Dr. Lawrence Moore, a psychologist at Cowell Memorial Hospital, that he intended to kill an unnamed girl readily identifiable as Tatiana when she returned from Brazil. Moore and other therapists decided Poddar should be committed, and campus police briefly detained him but released him when he appeared rational and promised to stay away from Tatiana. Plaintiffs further alleged that Dr. Harvey Powelson directed that no further action be taken to detain Poddar and that no one warned Tatiana or her parents of the danger. Poddar later went to Tatiana's residence and killed her.

Issue

Whether defendant therapists owed a duty of reasonable care to protect Tatiana, a nonpatient, from a patient's threatened violence, and if so whether governmental immunity barred liability. Also, whether the police defendants owed any comparable duty to Tatiana.

Rule

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 has a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect the intended or foreseeable victim. Depending on the circumstances, reasonable care may require warning the victim or others likely to apprise the victim, notifying the police, or taking other reasonably necessary steps; however, public-employee immunity bars liability for failure to bring about confinement, but not for failure to warn.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Sacramento, Dr. Elena Ruiz, a psychologist at a county clinic, learns during therapy that her patient, Nolan Pierce, has decided to beat his former roommate, Aaron Kim, with a metal bar when Aaron leaves work on Friday. Dr. Ruiz believes the threat is serious but does nothing. Nolan attacks Aaron two days later.

If Aaron sues Dr. Ruiz for negligence, which is the strongest argument that Dr. Ruiz owed Aaron a duty?

Explanation. The majority held that when a therapist determines, or under professional standards should determine, that a patient presents a serious danger of violence to another, the therapist owes a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect the intended or foreseeable victim. The duty arises from the special therapist-patient relationship, not from a general duty to all persons, strict liability, or shared residence.