On October 27, 1969 Tatiana Tarasoff was killed by Prosenjit Poddar. Tatiana Tarasoff’s parents (Plaintiffs) claim that Dr. Lawrance Moore (Defendant) and other therapists had the duty to warn Tatiana and parents of threats made by their patient, Prosenjit Poddar. They argue that two months earlier the Prosenjit Poddar had mentioned to Dr. Moore his intentions to kill Tatiana Tarasoff. Dr. Moore in fact did warn campus police about Poddar’s intentions and was detained briefly to be later released once he appeared rational. After, Dr. Harvey Powelson, Moore’s superior asked that no further action be taken to detain Poddar. At that point the decision of notifying the Tarasoff family was discarded. The Tarasoff family launched a civil suit against
…show more content…
Defendants alleged that they had no duty of reasonable care to Tatiana since she was not their patient, but that conduct turned to be a mistake because Tatiana paid for the therapist decision. On the case of Heaven v. Pender (1883) 11 Q.B.D. 503, 509 stated: “whenever one person or property is by circumstances placed in such position with regard to another… that if he did not use ordinary care and skill in is own conduct… he would cause danger of injury to the person or property of the other, a duty arises to use ordinary care and skill to avoid such danger.” This case is connected to the Tarasoff case since both defendants had the ability to prevent an incident to occur. Due to factors involved in the case the California Supreme Court held that the defendant had a duty to use reasonable care to protect Tatiana …show more content…
Then the California Supreme Court ruled that psychotherapists have the duty to protect potential victims if their patients make threats that are considered serious danger. The court determined that the therapists should protect the public safety, which is more important than protecting client-therapist confidentiality. On the other hand the police officers involved were immune for liability and the source of their immunity is section 5154 of the welfare and Institution Code. The code states that “’[the] professional person in charge of the facility providing 72 – hour treatment and evaluation, his designee, and the peace officer responsible for the detainment of the person shall mot be held civilly or criminally liable for any action by the person released at or before the end of 72 hours…”’ Due to the court’s decision the state of California passed a law “Duty to Warn” stating that therapist should notify potential victims and law enforcement. Therapists in many jurisdictions are now required to follow this regulation. On the code of conduct as a Social Worker Section H gives privacy and confidentiality regulations. On section H3 states “Social workers shall protect the confidentiality of all information obtained in the course of professional service, except for compelling professional
Defendants alleged that they had no duty of reasonable care to Tatiana since she was not their patient, but that conduct turned to be a mistake because Tatiana paid for the therapist decision. On the case of Heaven v. Pender (1883) 11 Q.B.D. 503, 509 stated: “whenever one person or property is by circumstances placed in such position with regard to another… that if he did not use ordinary care and skill in is own conduct… he would cause danger of injury to the person or property of the other, a duty arises to use ordinary care and skill to avoid such danger.” This case is connected to the Tarasoff case since both defendants had the ability to prevent an incident to occur. Due to factors involved in the case the California Supreme Court held that the defendant had a duty to use reasonable care to protect Tatiana …show more content…
Then the California Supreme Court ruled that psychotherapists have the duty to protect potential victims if their patients make threats that are considered serious danger. The court determined that the therapists should protect the public safety, which is more important than protecting client-therapist confidentiality. On the other hand the police officers involved were immune for liability and the source of their immunity is section 5154 of the welfare and Institution Code. The code states that “’[the] professional person in charge of the facility providing 72 – hour treatment and evaluation, his designee, and the peace officer responsible for the detainment of the person shall mot be held civilly or criminally liable for any action by the person released at or before the end of 72 hours…”’ Due to the court’s decision the state of California passed a law “Duty to Warn” stating that therapist should notify potential victims and law enforcement. Therapists in many jurisdictions are now required to follow this regulation. On the code of conduct as a Social Worker Section H gives privacy and confidentiality regulations. On section H3 states “Social workers shall protect the confidentiality of all information obtained in the course of professional service, except for compelling professional