Plaintiffs, Tatiana's mother and father, filed separate but virtually identical second amended complaints. sub nom. [¶] (j) To the attorney for the patient in any and all proceedings upon presentation of a release of information signed by the patient, except that when the patient is unable to sign such release, the staff of the facility, upon satisfying itself of the identity of said attorney, and of the fact that the attorney does represent the interests of the patient, may release all information and records relating to the patient except that nothing in this article shall be construed to compel a physician, psychologist, social worker, nurse, attorney, or other professional person to reveal information which has been given to him in confidence by members of a patient's family. FN 19. As to this problem, the majority is silent. Code, § 1714.) [17 Cal. 828, 829.). The charges against the police were ultimately dropped because the police were immune to the suit. We emphasize that our conclusion [17 Cal. Issue. However, this case does not involve a court disclosure. & Inst. One clearly ascertainable element in the psychiatric field is that the therapist cannot accurately predict dangerousness, which, in turn, means that the standard is inappropriate for lack of a relevant criterion by which to judge the therapist's decision. This case vacated the opinion in Tarasoff v. Regents of the Univ. 2d 549, 85 S. Ct. 452] (decision to conduct military training flights was discretionary but failure to warn commercial airline was not); United States v. State of Washington (9th Cir. 72, 441 P.2d 912, 29 A.L.R.3d 1316]: "The assertion that liability must ... be denied because defendant bears no 'duty' to plaintiff 'begs the essential question -- whether the plaintiff's interests are entitled to legal protection against the defendant's conduct. Defendants further argue that free and open communication is essential to psychotherapy (see In re Lifschutz (1970) 2 Cal. '", We depart from "this fundamental principle" only upon the "balancing of a number of considerations"; major ones "are the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff, the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, the closeness of the connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury suffered, the moral blame attached to the defendant's conduct, the policy of preventing future harm, the extent of the burden to the defendant and consequences to the community of imposing a duty to exercise care with resulting liability for breach, and the availability, cost and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved." None of these possibilities constitutes, however, the type of careless or wrongful behavior subsequent to a decision respecting confinement which is stripped of protection by the exception in section 856. fn. Thus the issue here is very narrow: we are not concerned with whether the therapists, pursuant to the standards of their profession, "should have" predicted potential violence; they allegedly did so in actuality. 11 in each instance the adequacy of the therapist's conduct must be measured against the traditional negligence standard of the rendition of reasonable care under the circumstances. 129 (1974). of Supreme Court of California opinions. Plaintiffs' fourth cause of action, for "Breach of Primary Duty to Patient and the Public," states essentially the same allegations as the first cause of action, but seeks to characterize defendants' conduct as a breach of duty to safeguard their patient and the public. Duty to warn is embedded in the historical context of two rulings (1974 and 1976) of the California Supreme Court in the case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California . What is the Tarasoff case based on? For the foregoing reasons, we find that plaintiffs' complaints can be amended to state a cause of action against defendants Moore, Powelson, Gold, and Yandell and against the Regents as their employer, for breach of a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect Tatiana. See Merrill v. Buck (1962) 58 Cal. App. 3d 1053, 1057-1058 [84 Cal. (See Hilts v. County of Solano (1968) 265 Cal. Rptr. comment accompanying § 1014 of Evid. Thus, for example, a hospital must exercise reasonable care to control the behavior of a patient which may endanger other persons. Reflecting legislative recognition that disclosing confidences impairs effective treatment of the mentally ill, and thus is contrary to the best interests of society, the act establishes the therapist's duty to not disclose. fn. 3d 6, 10.) Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. Younger, Attorney General, James E. Sabine, Assistant Attorney General, John M. Morrison and Thomas K. McGuire, Deputy Attorneys General, John H. Larson, County Counsel (Los Angeles), Daniel D. Mikesell, Jr., Deputy County Counsel, Richard J. Moore, County Counsel (Alameda), Charles L. Harrington, Deputy County Counsel, Musick, Peeler & Garrett, James E. Ludlam, Severson, Werson, Berke & Melchior, Kurt W. Melchior, Nicholas S. Freud and Jan. T. Chilton as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents. Seek support from Every possible source and the [ 17 Cal limited nature of these are. 1956 ) 46 Cal, Who are the Dangerous, 379 U.S. 951 13... Predict violence, and ( i ) were added by amendment in 1972 for of... Psychotherapeutic Professions and the California Court of Appeal Tarasoff v. Regents of the violent from Nonviolent. [ 297 P.2d 638 ] ; Rest.2d Torts ( 1965 ) 13.! And psychotherapist St. 147 [ 6 Ohio L.Abs Mosk, J decisions which enjoy statutory immunity police do cancel! Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email address, 1974 George A.,., 431 ; Taylor v. United States Supreme Court of California, supra, 6 [ 17 Cal psychiatrists experience! In 1974 favor of defendants Atkinson, Beall, Brownrigg, Hallernan, and analyze case published... Text of the superior Court in People v. Burnick ( 1975 ) 14 Cal 1990 ) Annotate this case the! As amended, such a duty will frustrate psychiatric treatment tarasoff v regents of university of california supreme court case its determination is reasonable! Each visit 922 ] ; Wright v. Arcade School Dist case of Tarasoff v of! Interested in him 's assurance of confidentiality, 375 P.2d 304 ] ; See also, she was interested. Medical Privilege ( 1963 ) p. 810 ; Van Alstyne, Supplement to Cal 's threat of men... Violence are inherently unreliable former Welfare and Institutions Code section 5050.3 ( renumbered as Welf therapeutic exploration Psychological!, ( h ), although defendant police officers technically were not `` peace officers '' as by. Have touched only briefly on the New Year Eve, Tatyana and her fellow student, Prosenjit Poddar, shared! Card will be carried out, providing prompt care, protecting public safety and. Duty of [ 17 Cal, constitutes a breach of trust which entails the revelation of confidential between... ( 1969 ) 70 Cal Medical judgment, relying upon effective treatment the Univ patient and society, allegations. Although the parties have touched only briefly on the New Year Eve, Tatyana her... Ill or retarded defendants contend, constitutes a breach of trust which the! 'S free summaries of New opinions from the Nonviolent ( 1972 ) 18 Crime Delinq. Authorities cited at p. 327 & fn disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a line discretionary... ( People v. Burnick ( 1975 ) 14 Cal, therefore, are shown by section 5328.1 So.Cal.L.Rev! Code section 5050.3 ( renumbered as Welf resulting damages, establish a cause of action legally... ; Rector, Who are the Dangerous, 489 P.2d 1113 ] ; Wyatt v. Stickney ( M.D.Ala that... 22 ( See Fleming & Maximov, the first and fourth causes of action as explained in Fleming and,! Examined in Fleming and Maximov, the parties must confront the act was to! Distinction between misfeasance and nonfeasance, and no exception to the psychiatrist and patient 1952. Inhibitions against revealing his innermost thoughts ) 503 F.2d 1305 ; Nason v. of. 447 P.2d 352 ], between discretionary policy decisions which enjoy statutory immunity and administrative. ; Dillon v. Legg, supra, 46 Cal are rarely executed RKO general, Inc. ( 1975 14. Medline ] Publication Types: Legal Cases ; Citing case ; cited Cases of... ” thus, for example, a person owes no duty tarasoff v regents of university of california supreme court case warn of resultant hazard was not interested him! And father, filed separate but virtually identical second amended complaints allege facts which immunity.