Prosenjit Poddar, a patient at the University of California student health service, told his psychologist, Dr. Lawrence Moore, that he intended to kill Tatiana Tarasoff. Moore notified campus police and recommended Poddar be detained, but Poddar was released when he appeared rational, and no further effective warning was given to Tatiana or her family. University officials allegedly directed that no further action be taken. Poddar later killed Tatiana, and her parents sued the Regents, therapists, and police for failing to warn or protect her.
Does a psychotherapist owe a duty to use reasonable care to warn or otherwise protect an identifiable third person when the therapist determines, or should determine, that a patient presents a serious danger of violence to that person?
When a therapist determines, or pursuant to professional standards should determine, that a patient poses a serious danger of violence to another, the therapist has a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect the foreseeable victim. The protective duty may be discharged by reasonable steps under the circumstances, including warning the victim, notifying law enforcement, or taking other measures reasonably necessary.
Yes. The court held that therapists may owe a duty to identifiable third persons endangered by a patient, and the complaint stated a cause of action for negligent failure to protect Tatiana Tarasoff. The court rejected absolute reliance on patient confidentiality where public peril begins.
The court grounded the duty in general negligence principles: foreseeability of harm, the special relationship between therapist and patient, and the therapist’s ability to take steps to reduce the danger. It reasoned that confidentiality is important but not absolute, and must yield when necessary to avert serious danger to others. Because the risk was specific and grave, and the victim was identifiable, imposing a duty to protect was consistent with California tort law. The court emphasized that the duty is one of reasonable care, not an inflexible duty to warn in every case.
Justice Clark, joined in part by others, warned that imposing liability would undermine psychotherapeutic confidentiality, discourage treatment, and force therapists into unreliable predictions of dangerousness, ultimately harming both patients and the public.
Tarasoff is the leading case establishing the modern "duty to warn/protect" foreseeable victims from threats made by patients in psychotherapy. It limited therapist-patient confidentiality when necessary to prevent serious violence and strongly influenced statutes and common law nationwide. Closely related California decisions include Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 13 Cal. 3d 177 (1974) (earlier opinion later reheard), Thompson v. County of Alameda, 27 Cal. 3d 741 (1980), and Hedlund v. Superior Court, 34 Cal. 3d 695 (1983).
Enter a case name or citation — get a structured brief where every case it cites is checked against real law.
Try Law Student Workbench →