Tarasoff v. Regents of the
University of California - revisited
Wendy Packman PhD
Used with permission
Tarasoff Statute
Cal.Civ. Code (§ 43.92)
 When
does a psychotherapist have
an affirmative duty to act?
A
therapist has a duty to protect and
warn a potential victim(s) when the
following 3 conditions are met:
Psychotherapist duty to warn
and protect:
1. Patient has communicated to the
psychotherapist a threat of physical
violence
2. The threat must be serious
3. The victim(s) must be reasonably
identifiable
How does a therapist fulfill
duty to warn and protect?:
By reasonable efforts to communicate
the threat:
1. To the victim(s) and
2. To the police
Ewing vs. Goldstein
What happened?
 The therapist (Goldstein) treated the
patient for work-related emotional
problems and problems concerning
his former girlfriend.
 Patient told his father that he was
considering causing harm to his
former girlfriend’s new boyfriend.
Ewing v. Goldstein: Facts
 The father contacted the therapist and told
him what the patient had said.
 Patient subsequently murdered the
boyfriend and then committed suicide.
 Parents sued therapist for wrongful death
based on therapist’s failure to warn the
victim after the therapist received a
communication that the patient threatened
to kill or cause serious physical harm to
the victim.
California Court of Appeal
findings:
 Court found that the trial court too
narrowly construed § 43.92. A
communication from a family
member to a therapist, made for the
purpose of advancing a patient’s
therapy, was a “patient
communication” within the meaning
of § 43.92.
California Court of Appeal
findings:
 The therapist’s duty to warn a victim
arises if the information
communicated leads the therapist to
believe or predict that the patient
poses a serious risk of grave bodily
injury to another.
California Court of Appeal findings
 A therapist has a duty to warn if, and
only if, the threat which the therapist
has learned – whether from the
patient or a family member – actually
leads him/her to believe the patient
poses a risk of grave bodily injury to
another.
California Court of Appeal findings
 Information provided to therapists by
family members that their client is a
serious danger to self or others is a
part of the confidential treatment
process. Thus, the duty to warn
appropriate third parties and the
police is triggered.
What does this mean?
 This ruling would obligate therapists
to be capable of reliably identifying
telephonic or electronic messages as
coming from an “intimate family
member,” and to be able to assess
the credibility of such
communications in order to take
immediate action.
Implications ??
 The question is explicitly left open by
the court as to how far the duty may
extend—to in-laws, cousins,
grandparents, step-relations,
domestic partners, same sex
partners, intimate friends, exspouses, ex-boyfriends, ad
infinitum?
Bad Decision
 The California Supreme Court denied
the petitions for review in the two
Ewing cases on 11/10/04 (v. Goldstein
and v. Northridge Hospital), and denied
the requests to depublish the
opinions. So, the broader
interpretation of Tarasoff's duty to
warn remains.
Tarasoff v. Regents of the
University of California - revisited
End of presentation