Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California
Encyclopedia
Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California
, 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14
(Cal.
1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of California
held that mental health professionals have a duty to protect
individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by a patient. 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, warning the intended victim
, and/or taking other reasonable steps to protect the threatened individual.
, India
. He came to the UC Berkeley
as a graduate student in September 1967 and resided at International House. In the fall of 1968 he attended folk dancing classes at the International House, and it was there he met Tatiana Tarasoff. They saw each other weekly throughout the fall, and on New Year's Eve she kissed Poddar. He interpreted the act to be a recognition of the existence of a serious relationship. This view was not shared by Tarasoff who, upon learning of his feelings, told him that she was involved with other men and otherwise indicated that she was not interested in entering into an intimate relationship with him. This gave rise to feelings of resentment in Poddar. He began to stalk her and apparently developed a wish for revenge.
As a result of this rebuff Poddar underwent a severe emotional crisis. He became depressed and neglected his appearance, his studies, and his health. He remained by himself, speaking disjointedly and often weeping. This condition persisted, with steady deterioration, throughout the spring and into the summer of 1969. The defendant had occasional meetings with Tarasoff during this period and taperecorded their various conversations to try to find out why she did not love him.
During the summer of 1969, Tarasoff went to South America
. After her departure Poddar began to improve and at the suggestion of a friend sought psychological assistance. Prosenjit Poddar was a patient of Dr. Lawrence Moore, a psychologist at UC Berkeley
's Cowell Memorial Hospital in 1969. Poddar confided his intent to kill Tarasoff. Dr. Moore requested that the campus police detain Poddar, writing that, in his opinion, Poddar was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia
, acute and severe. The psychologist recommended that the defendant be civilly committed as a dangerous person. Poddar was detained but shortly thereafter released, as he appeared rational. Dr. Moore's supervisor, Dr. Harvey Powelson, then ordered that Poddar not be subject to further detention.
In October, after Tarasoff had returned, Poddar stopped seeing his psychologist. Neither Tarasoff nor her parents received any warning of the threat. Poddar then befriended Tarasoff's brother, even moving in with him. Several months later, on October 27, 1969, Poddar carried out the plan he had confided to his psychologist, stabbing and killing Tarasoff. Tarasoff's parents then sued Moore and various other employees of the University.
In a criminal case, People v. Poddar, Poddar was convicted of second-degree murder, but the conviction was later appealed and overturned on the grounds that the jury was inadequately informed. A second trial was not held, and Poddar was released on the condition that he would return to India
.
Justice Mathew O. Tobriner
wrote the famous holding in the majority opinion. "The public policy
favoring protection of the confidential character of patient-psychotherapist communications must yield to the extent to which disclosure is essential to avert danger to others. The protective privilege ends where the public peril begins."
Justice Mosk wrote a partial dissent, arguing two things: (1) that the rule in future cases should be one of the actual subjective prediction of violence on the part of the psychiatrist, which occurred in this case, not one based on objective professional standards, because predictions are inherently unreliable; and (2) the psychiatrists notified the police, who were presumably in a better position to protect Tatiana than she would be to protect herself.
Justice Clark dissented, quoting a law review
article that stated, "the very practice of psychiatry depends upon the reputation in the community that the psychiatrist will not tell."
was a landmark murder case, setting precedent on upholding Physician-patient privilege
even when a Tarasoff warning is invoked: "Neither a psychiatrist issuing a Tarasoff warning nor a patient telling his friends he's in treatment constitutes a waiver of a patient's psychiatrist-patient privilege."
Regents of the University of California
The Regents of the University of California make up the governing board of the University of California. The Board has 26 full members:* The majority are appointed by the Governor of California for 12-year terms....
, 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(Cal.
Supreme Court of California
The Supreme Court of California is the highest state court in California. It is headquartered in San Francisco and regularly holds sessions in Los Angeles and Sacramento. Its decisions are binding on all other California state courts.-Composition:...
1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of California
Supreme Court of California
The Supreme Court of California is the highest state court in California. It is headquartered in San Francisco and regularly holds sessions in Los Angeles and Sacramento. Its decisions are binding on all other California state courts.-Composition:...
held that mental health professionals have a duty to protect
Duty to protect
The duty to protect is the responsibility of a mental health professional to protect patients and others from foreseeable harm. If a client makes statements that suggest suicidal or homicidal ideation, the clinician has the responsibility to take steps to warn intended victims, and if necessary,...
individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by a patient. 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, warning the intended victim
Duty to warn
A duty to warn is a concept that arises in the law of torts in a number of circumstances, indicating that a party will be held liable for injuries caused to another, where the party had the opportunity to warn the other of a hazard and failed to do so....
, and/or taking other reasonable steps to protect the threatened individual.
Facts
Prosenjit Poddar was a student from BengalBengal
Bengal is a historical and geographical region in the northeast region of the Indian Subcontinent at the apex of the Bay of Bengal. Today, it is mainly divided between the sovereign land of People's Republic of Bangladesh and the Indian state of West Bengal, although some regions of the previous...
, India
India
India , officially the Republic of India , is a country in South Asia. It is the seventh-largest country by geographical area, the second-most populous country with over 1.2 billion people, and the most populous democracy in the world...
. He came to the UC Berkeley
University of California, Berkeley
The University of California, Berkeley , is a teaching and research university established in 1868 and located in Berkeley, California, USA...
as a graduate student in September 1967 and resided at International House. In the fall of 1968 he attended folk dancing classes at the International House, and it was there he met Tatiana Tarasoff. They saw each other weekly throughout the fall, and on New Year's Eve she kissed Poddar. He interpreted the act to be a recognition of the existence of a serious relationship. This view was not shared by Tarasoff who, upon learning of his feelings, told him that she was involved with other men and otherwise indicated that she was not interested in entering into an intimate relationship with him. This gave rise to feelings of resentment in Poddar. He began to stalk her and apparently developed a wish for revenge.
As a result of this rebuff Poddar underwent a severe emotional crisis. He became depressed and neglected his appearance, his studies, and his health. He remained by himself, speaking disjointedly and often weeping. This condition persisted, with steady deterioration, throughout the spring and into the summer of 1969. The defendant had occasional meetings with Tarasoff during this period and taperecorded their various conversations to try to find out why she did not love him.
During the summer of 1969, Tarasoff went to South America
South America
South America is a continent situated in the Western Hemisphere, mostly in the Southern Hemisphere, with a relatively small portion in the Northern Hemisphere. The continent is also considered a subcontinent of the Americas. It is bordered on the west by the Pacific Ocean and on the north and east...
. After her departure Poddar began to improve and at the suggestion of a friend sought psychological assistance. Prosenjit Poddar was a patient of Dr. Lawrence Moore, a psychologist at UC Berkeley
University of California, Berkeley
The University of California, Berkeley , is a teaching and research university established in 1868 and located in Berkeley, California, USA...
's Cowell Memorial Hospital in 1969. Poddar confided his intent to kill Tarasoff. Dr. Moore requested that the campus police detain Poddar, writing that, in his opinion, Poddar was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia
Schizophrenia
Schizophrenia is a mental disorder characterized by a disintegration of thought processes and of emotional responsiveness. It most commonly manifests itself as auditory hallucinations, paranoid or bizarre delusions, or disorganized speech and thinking, and it is accompanied by significant social...
, acute and severe. The psychologist recommended that the defendant be civilly committed as a dangerous person. Poddar was detained but shortly thereafter released, as he appeared rational. Dr. Moore's supervisor, Dr. Harvey Powelson, then ordered that Poddar not be subject to further detention.
In October, after Tarasoff had returned, Poddar stopped seeing his psychologist. Neither Tarasoff nor her parents received any warning of the threat. Poddar then befriended Tarasoff's brother, even moving in with him. Several months later, on October 27, 1969, Poddar carried out the plan he had confided to his psychologist, stabbing and killing Tarasoff. Tarasoff's parents then sued Moore and various other employees of the University.
In a criminal case, People v. Poddar, Poddar was convicted of second-degree murder, but the conviction was later appealed and overturned on the grounds that the jury was inadequately informed. A second trial was not held, and Poddar was released on the condition that he would return to India
India
India , officially the Republic of India , is a country in South Asia. It is the seventh-largest country by geographical area, the second-most populous country with over 1.2 billion people, and the most populous democracy in the world...
.
Opinion of the Court
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.Justice Mathew O. Tobriner
Mathew Tobriner
Mathew Oscar Tobriner was an Associate Justice on the California Supreme Court from July 1962–January 1982. An appointee of Democratic Governor Pat Brown, he had worked as a labor lawyer until 1959, when Brown appointed him to the California Court of Appeal. After three years on the Court...
wrote the famous holding in the majority opinion. "The public policy
Public policy
Public policy as government action is generally the principled guide to action taken by the administrative or executive branches of the state with regard to a class of issues in a manner consistent with law and institutional customs. In general, the foundation is the pertinent national and...
favoring protection of the confidential character of patient-psychotherapist communications must yield to the extent to which disclosure is essential to avert danger to others. The protective privilege ends where the public peril begins."
Justice Mosk wrote a partial dissent, arguing two things: (1) that the rule in future cases should be one of the actual subjective prediction of violence on the part of the psychiatrist, which occurred in this case, not one based on objective professional standards, because predictions are inherently unreliable; and (2) the psychiatrists notified the police, who were presumably in a better position to protect Tatiana than she would be to protect herself.
Justice Clark dissented, quoting a law review
Law review
A law review is a scholarly journal focusing on legal issues, normally published by an organization of students at a law school or through a bar association...
article that stated, "the very practice of psychiatry depends upon the reputation in the community that the psychiatrist will not tell."
Subsequent Developments
People of the State of New York v. Robert BierenbaumRobert Bierenbaum
Robert Bierenbaum is a plastic surgeon who has been convicted in October 2000 of murder in the strangulation death of his wife, Gail Katz-Bierenbaum. The death occurred in their Manhattan apartment on July 7, 1985....
was a landmark murder case, setting precedent on upholding Physician-patient privilege
Physician-patient privilege
Physician–patient privilege is a legal concept, related to medical confidentiality, that protects communications between a patient and his or her doctor from being used against the patient in court. It is a part of the rules of evidence in many common law jurisdictions...
even when a Tarasoff warning is invoked: "Neither a psychiatrist issuing a Tarasoff warning nor a patient telling his friends he's in treatment constitutes a waiver of a patient's psychiatrist-patient privilege."