Tarasoff v' Regents of the

1
Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of
California
2
THE CRIME

• Prosenjit Poddar killed Tatiana Tarasoff on
  October 27, 1969.
• Poddar had some months earlier informed his
  psychologist at the University of California at
  Berkeley Dr. Lawrence Moore of his intention
  to kill Tatiana.
• Poddar had been briefly detained by campus police
  but was released because he appeared to be
  rational.
• Dr. Moores superior Dr. Harvey Powelson
  directed that no further action be taken to
  detain Poddar.
• No warning was given to the victim or her family.

3
THE COURTS FINDING

• The principal finding of the California Supreme
  Court in Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of
  California was that, when a therapist knows that
  one of his or her patients represents a potential
  threat to another person, then the therapist has
  an obligation to use reasonable care to protect
  the intended victim of that patient.
• This may include warning the intended victim
  directly, or some other person who are likely
  able to inform the victim, or informing the
  police of the possible danger that the patient
  represents to the intended victim.

4
REASONS FOR DISSENT

• Justice Clarks reasons for dissenting
• 1. Without the assurance of patient
  confidentiality, patients are less likely to seek
  cure, and less likely to disclose information
  that may be pertinent to their cure.
• 2. Their chance of being treated successfully
  depends on trusting the therapist not to reveal
  any information conveyed to the therapist.
• 3. Requiring therapists to warn intended victims
  will actually harm society, since then people who
  need psychiatric treatment will be less likely to
  seek it.
• 4. People who do not deserve to be confined will
  be confined in virtue of their confessions to
  their therapists.