Tort Law - Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege - Patient's Dangerous Condition - Confidentiality - Legal Duty to Warn Potential Victim - Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California
![handle is hein.journals/aklr9 and id is 203 raw text is: Summer, 1975]
TORT LAW
Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege Patient's Dangerous Condition
- Confidentiality. Legal Duty to Warn Potential Victim
Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California,
13 Cal. 3d 177, 529 P.2d 553, 118 Cal. Rptr. 129 (1974)
p ROSENJIT PODDAR HAD COME to the United States from India to pursue
graduate studies at the University of California at Berkeley. While
attending the University of California, Poddar met and became infatuated with
Miss Tatiana Tarasoff. However, Miss Tarasoff did not return Poddar's
affection and as a result of her rejection, Poddar became extremely depressed;
neglected his appearance, studies, and health; spoke disjointedly, and often
wept.1 It was in this mental state that Poddar sought psychiatric aid at the
Cowell Memorial Hospital, at the University of California. During therapy,
Poddar confided to Dr. Moore, a psychologist, his intention to kill Tatiana
upon her return from South America.2 Dr. Moore's attempt to have Poddar
confined for treatment failed when the campus police released him on his
promise to stay away from Tatiana. After this attempt to have Poddar
confined, he ceased all treatment at the hospital;3 and upon Tatiana's return
to Berkeley, went to her apartment, and killed her.'
Tatiana's parents, as plaintiffs, brought this wrongful death action against
the University regents, doctors, and campus police.' The plaintiffs alleged
liability both for failure to confine Poddar and for failure to warn them of the
danger confronting their daughter.6 The Court of Appeals, First District,
Division One affirmed the Superior Court for Alameda County in its dismissal
of both causes of action.' The Supreme Court of California affirmed the court
of appeals as to the dismissal of the first contention of liability, predicated
upon the defendants' failure to confine Poddar, on the theory of statutory
immunity.8 However, the dismissal of the second ground for liability, based
' People v. Poddar, 10 Cal. 3d 750, 518 P.2d 342, 111 Cal. Rptr. 910 (1974) (report of
the criminal prosecution).
2 529 P.2d 553, 554, 118 Cal. Rptr. 129, 130 (1974).
3 Id. at 555, 118 Cal. Rptr. at 131.
4 People v. Poddar, 10 Cal. 3d 750, 518 P.2d 342, 111 Cal. Rptr. 910 (1974).
5 529 P.2d at 554, 118 Cal. Rptr. at 130.
6ld.
7 Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 33 Cal. App. 3d 275, 108 Cal. Rptr.
878 (1973), vacated, 13 Cal. 3d 177, 529 P.2d 553, 118 Cal. Rptr. 129 (1974).
8 529 P.2d at 563, 118 Cal. Rptr. at 139. CAL. Gov'T CODE § 856(a) (West 1966)
declares that: Neither a public entity nor a public employee acting within the scope of
his employment is liable for any injury resulting from determining in accordance with
any applicable enactment: (1) Whether to confine a person for mental illness or
addiction .. The therapist's power to confine Poddar, as specified in CAL. WELF. &
R*ECENT CASES](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/aklr9&div=18&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most