The Evolution of Tarasoff: Recent Developments in the Psychiatrist's Duties to Warn Potential Victims,Protect the Public,and Predict Dangerousness

Abstract

Since 1976, several courts have found California's Tarasoff decision persuasive, requiring psychotherapists to warn potential victims of threats of danger posed by patients under therapists’ care. Other courts have found that confidentiality of the patient-psychotherapist relationship is paramount. Some courts have found a duty to warn is owed only to a specifically identified victim. When no victim has been identified, other courts still have found a duty of the psychotherapist to exercise reasonable care to protect the public. Although some courts have held that a duty exists when a psychotherapist should have predicted violence, but did not, no clear standard for reasonableness in predicting dangerousness has emerged. Courts have looked to expert testimony regarding such predictions even though the APA and other authorities maintain that no such standard exists.