The Tarasoff Case

The Tarasoff case is a landmark decision in American law that established a duty for mental health professionals to protect third parties from harm that their patients may inflict. The case arose from the 1969 murder of Tatiana Tarasoff by Prosenjit Poddar, a patient of Dr. Lawrence Moore, a psychologist at the University of California, Berkeley.

Poddar had been seeing Moore for treatment of schizophrenia and had told Moore that he intended to kill Tarasoff, who was his former girlfriend. Moore informed the campus police of Poddar’s threats, but the police released Poddar because he did not appear to be an imminent danger to himself or others.

Poddar subsequently killed Tarasoff. Tarasoff’s parents sued Moore and the university, alleging that they had a duty to warn Tarasoff of the danger posed by Poddar. The California Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Tarasoff family, holding that mental health professionals have a duty to protect third parties from harm that their patients may inflict if the professionals have a reasonable belief that the patient poses a serious danger to the third party.

The Tarasoff Case and Mental Health Clinicians

The Tarasoff case has had a significant impact on mental health clinicians. It has made them more aware of their duty to protect third parties from harm, and it has led to the development of new risk assessment tools and procedures.

Clinicians must now carefully evaluate their patients for the risk of violence, and they must take steps to protect potential victims if they believe that their patients pose a serious danger. This may involve warning the potential victim, notifying the police, or taking other measures to prevent the violence from occurring.

Violence Risk Assessment Instruments

There are a number of violence risk assessment instruments that clinicians can use to meet the requirements of Tarasoff. These instruments are designed to assess the risk of violence in individuals, and they can help clinicians to identify patients who may pose a danger to themselves or others.

Some of the most commonly used violence risk assessment instruments include:

• The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R): This instrument is designed to assess the presence of psychopathic traits in individuals.
• The Historical, Clinical, and Risk Management-20 (HCR-20): This instrument is designed to assess the risk of violence in individuals based on their history, clinical presentation, and risk management factors.
• The Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG): This instrument is designed to assess the risk of violence in individuals based on 12 risk factors.

Civil Liability for Violent Behavior

The Tarasoff case also raises the question of whether clinicians can be held civilly liable for the violent behavior of their patients. This is a complex issue, and the answer will vary depending on the specific facts of the case.

In general, clinicians will not be held civilly liable for the violent behavior of their patients if they have taken reasonable steps to protect potential victims. However, if clinicians fail to take reasonable steps to protect potential victims, they may be held liable for the resulting harm.

For example, if a clinician fails to warn a potential victim of the danger posed by their patient, and the patient subsequently commits violence against the victim, the clinician may be held liable for the victim’s injuries.

The decision of whether or not to hold a clinician civilly liable for the violent behavior of their patient will be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all of the relevant factors.

Conclusion

The Tarasoff case has had a significant impact on mental health law and practice. It has made clinicians more aware of their duty to protect third parties from harm, and it has led to the development of new risk assessment tools and procedures.

Clinicians must carefully evaluate their patients for the risk of violence, and they must take steps to protect potential victims if they believe that their patients pose a serious danger. This may involve warning the potential victim, notifying the police, or taking other measures to prevent the violence from occurring.