What was the basic decision in the Tarasoff case?

In Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (1976), the California Supreme Court held that mental health providers have an obligation to protect persons who could be harmed by a patient.

What are the 3 conditions that must be met to enforce the Tarasoff case?

-In such situations, physicians should try to DETAIN the person making the threat, next call the police, and finally notify and warn the potential victim. -All three actions should be taken or at least attempted.

Is Tarasoff still good law?

In 2013, legislation went into effect clarifying that the Tarasoff duty in California is now unambiguously solely a duty to protect. Warning the potential victim and the police is not a requirement, but a clinician can obtain immunity from liability by using this safe harbor.

What was the result of the Tarasoff case in California in 1974?

The California Supreme Court found that a mental health professional has a duty not only to a patient, but also to individuals who are specifically being threatened by a patient. This decision has since been adopted by most states in the U.S. and is widely influential in jurisdictions outside the U.S. as well.

What was the outcome of the Tarasoff case?

Moore and Powelson defended their case because it was their duty to their patient over a third party and the courts agreed. After the plaintiffs appealed this decision, the California Supreme Court reviewed the case and in 1976, handed down what was to be a landmark decision, in favor of Tarasoff’s family.

What was the outcome of Tarasoff v.regents of the University of California?

Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California. The original 1974 decision mandated warning the threatened individual, but a 1976 rehearing of the case by the California Supreme Court called for a “duty to protect” the intended victim. The professional may discharge the duty in several ways, including notifying police,…

How does one practice good clinical judgment with Tarasoff?

The intricacies of Tarasoff involve so many variables, from state to state, scenario to scenario, case to case. How does one practice good clinical judgment? The article presents a consideration and discussion with two personal stories in which the so-called Tarasoff Rule, or the “duty to warn” a threatened third party, was invoked.

Who was involved in the case of Tanya Tarasoff?

Ms. Tarasoff’s parents brought suit against the psychologist, his superior, the campus police, and their employer, the University of California, for failure to warn them, Tanya, or anyone who could have reasonably been expected to notify Tanya of her danger and for negligently failing to confine Poddar.