## Facts

- Prosenjit Poddar was treated by mental health professionals employed by the Regents of the University of California at UC Berkeley.
- Plaintiffs (Tatiana Tarasoff’s parents) alleged that Poddar told Dr. Lawrence Moore, a university psychologist, that he intended to kill Tatiana Tarasoff.
- At Moore’s request, campus police briefly detained Poddar but released him after he appeared rational.
- Moore’s supervisor, Dr. Harvey Powelson, allegedly directed that no further action be taken to detain Poddar.
- No one warned Tatiana Tarasoff or her parents of the alleged threat.
- On October 27, 1969, Poddar killed Tatiana Tarasoff.
- Plaintiffs sued the Regents and university employees, alleging negligence for (1) failing to warn Tatiana or her parents and (2) failing to secure Poddar’s confinement under California’s civil commitment scheme.
- Defendants asserted no duty was owed to Tatiana and argued statutory immunities under the California Tort Claims Act.

## Issues

1. Whether a therapist who knows or should know a patient poses a serious danger of violence to an identifiable person owes a duty to use reasonable care to protect that person, including by warning or other measures.
2. Whether psychotherapist confidentiality or privilege bars disclosures necessary to protect a threatened third party.
3. Whether campus police who briefly detained and released the patient owed a duty to warn or protect the victim.
4. Whether statutory immunities under the California Tort Claims Act barred the negligence claims.

## Decision

- The court held the complaint stated a cause of action against the therapists and the Regents for negligent failure to use reasonable care to protect Tatiana Tarasoff from a foreseeable, serious risk of violence posed by their patient.
- The court ruled that confidentiality and privilege do not eliminate the protective obligation where disclosure is necessary to prevent danger to others.
- The court held the complaint did not state a cause of action against the campus police for failure to warn, due to the absence of a special relationship creating such a duty to Tatiana.
- The trial court’s dismissal (demurrer without leave to amend) was reversed as to the therapists and Regents and affirmed as to the police defendants; the case was allowed to proceed against the therapists and Regents.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant owes a duty of care to persons foreseeably endangered by the defendant’s conduct, limited by recognized duty doctrines such as special relationships.
- When a therapist determines, or under professional standards should determine, that a patient presents a serious danger of violence to another, the therapist must use reasonable care to protect the intended victim.
- The duty is a duty to protect, not merely a duty to warn; reasonable care may include warning the victim (or those likely to inform the victim), notifying law enforcement, or initiating involuntary commitment, depending on the circumstances and professional standards.
- Psychotherapist confidentiality must yield to the extent disclosure is essential to avert danger to others; privilege does not bar protective steps required by reasonable care.
- Liability for failure to control or warn about a third party’s conduct generally requires a qualifying special relationship; the therapist–patient relationship can supply that predicate, while a limited police interaction may not.
- Public entity and employee immunities do not categorically bar negligence claims where liability is based on the breach of a duty arising from a special relationship and foreseeable risk.

## Conclusion

The court recognized that mental health professionals may owe an actionable duty to take reasonable steps to protect an identifiable threatened person from a patient’s serious risk of violence, and that confidentiality does not excuse necessary protective action; however, absent a special relationship, campus police were not liable for failing to warn the victim.


Tarasoff v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 17 Cal. 3d 425 (1976)