## Facts

- John Peck, age 29, was an outpatient at a community mental health provider and treated by a counselor-psychotherapist.
- After a dispute with his father on June 20, 1979, John met with the therapist; she arranged for him to stay with his grandparents and scheduled follow-up sessions.
- In a June 26 session, John stated he wanted to “get back at his father” and, when asked how, said he could “burn down his barn.”
- The therapist discussed consequences, obtained John’s verbal assurance he would not act, and relied on that assurance.
- The therapist did not warn John’s parents, consult other staff, or obtain and review John’s most recent medical history.
- John had a history including impulsive assaultive behavior, alcoholism, epilepsy, and a possible brain disorder affecting judgment, but the therapist lacked full current information.
- On June 27, 1979, John set fire to his parents’ barn, destroying it.
- The parents sued the provider for negligence, alleging failure to take reasonable protective steps, including warning them.

## Issues

1. Whether a mental health professional treating an outpatient owes a duty to take reasonable steps to protect identifiable third persons from threatened physical harm posed by the patient.
2. Whether the therapist’s response to the threat met the applicable professional standard of care.
3. Whether psychotherapist-patient privilege and confidentiality barred disclosure of the threat and therefore negated any duty to warn or protect.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court reversed the defense judgment and remanded.
- The court held mental health professionals have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect third persons from threatened physical harm posed by a patient.
- The court concluded the record could support a finding that the therapist failed to act as a reasonably prudent counselor by relying solely on the patient’s assurance, without adequate information, consultation, or protective action.
- The court held privilege and confidentiality did not categorically bar disclosures necessary to protect an identifiable potential victim.

## Legal Principles

- As a general rule, there is no duty to control another person’s conduct to protect third parties; an exception exists when a “special relationship” supports a duty of protection.
- The therapist-patient relationship may constitute a special relationship sufficient to impose a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect identifiable third persons from foreseeable threatened physical harm.
- The content of the duty is reasonableness under the circumstances; the difficulty of predicting dangerousness informs the standard of care but does not eliminate duty as a matter of law.
- Psychotherapist-patient privilege is not absolute; limited disclosure necessary to protect an identifiable person from threatened physical harm may be permitted and may be required to satisfy the duty.

## Conclusion

The court recognized that outpatient mental health treatment can create a duty to take reasonable protective steps for identifiable third parties when a patient threatens physical harm, and it held that confidentiality does not automatically defeat that duty; the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these principles.


Peck v. Counseling Serv. of Addison Cnty., Inc., 499 A.2d 422 (Vt. 1985)