Tarasoff’s Case

James Elij San Andres

Bernadette Simbahan
Alexa Rae Solano
2Y
Overview
Tarasoff case is based on the 1969 murder of a university student
named Tatiana Tarasoff, which led to the creation of the Duty to Warn
and the Duty to Protect
 • Tarasoff and Poddar, both students at the University of California Berkeley, met
for the first time at a folk dancing class.

1968
• Went on several dates and although she did not consider their relationship
serious, he became obsessed, growing increasingly furious and depressed
• Poddar was encouraged to receive counseling after telling a friend about his plan
to blow up Tarasoff’s dorm

• Poddar had occasional meeting with Tanya during summer and tape-recorded

1969
their conversation in an attempt to ascertain as to why she did not love him.
• Torasoff went to Brazil
• Poddar begins therapy with Dr. Lawrence Moore where he discusses his violent
fantasies he has toward an unnamed girl readily identifiable as Tatiana when she
returned from Brazil (August 18).

• August 20, Dr. Moore notified campus police officers, Everett Atkinson and Johnny Teel
that Poddar was capable of doing harm to himself and to others. He also said that his

1969
behavior could be rational sometimes.
• Dr. Moore wrote a letter to the Chief of Campus Police, William Beal, stating that
Poddar suffered from Schizophrenic reaction, acute and severe, and was danger to
himself and to others. He further added that he would sign a 72-hr emergency
detention order on Poddar.
 • Dr. Gold and Dr. James Yandell, concurred Dr. Moore’s diagnosis and the need for
treatment and hospitalization

1969
• Campus police took Poddar into custody. Officers Gary Browning, Joseph Halleran, and
Atkinson talked to Poddar and was convinced that he was rational and had changed his
attitude.
• Officers then elicited a promise from Poddar to stay away from Tanya then released
him.

• Dr. Harvey Powelson, requested Chief Bael to return Dr. Moore’s letter and
destroy all Poddar’s therapists notes. He also instructed his staff to refrain from

1969 making further attempts at hospitalizing Poddar

• Tanya returned from Brazil on October and Poddar never returned from therapy.

• October 27, Poddar went to Tarasoff’s house to talk but she refused and shot her
with pellet gun. Tanya ran from the house. Poddar caught her and stabbed her to

1969
death. Poddar then called the police and told that he had stabbed Tatiana and asked
that he be handcuffed.
• Poddar went on trial for first degree murder and was found guilty of second degree
murder.
• Eventually deported to India
Ethical Issues Raised
Duty to Protect
Psychotherapists have a duty to protect potential victims if their
patients made threats or otherwise behave as if they presented a
“serious danger of violence to another
Confidentiality
Refers to the general standard of professional not to divulge in any
setting the identity or any information about the patient
Duty to Warn
• This arises when a patient makes a threat to harm others

• Protecting the public/person fron a known threat required a

disclosure of the confidential information to avert a preventable injury
or death.
Negligence
• Failure to take reasonable care to avoid causing harm.
Developments
 Tarasoff v. Regents of the University
of California(1974)
The first case to find that therapists may have a duty to warn third parties
from foreseeable harm. In a later decision, the same court dropped “duty to
warn” in favor of a “duty to protect” third parties from foreseeable harm.

Less than two years after the Tarasoff decision, the Superior Court found a
psychiatrist liable using the rationale of Tarasoff. Since that time, however, the
decision requiring psychotherapists to warn third parties of potentially
dangerous patients has been adopted in many jurisdictions and has been
expanded to include a wide variety of health care practitioners.
Expanded DUTY TO PROTECT
Courts have since expanded the scope and role of a clinician’s duty
to protect. In Jablonski v. United States (1983), the courts further
broadened Tarasoff's ambiguous definition of foreseeability and offered
a strict standard for the types of warning that will properly discharge a
therapist's duty to protect. The Jablonski court held that specific
threats are not the only indicator of foreseeability, but rather that a
patient's history of violence towards a specific victim or class of
victims may be sufficient. Moreover, Jablonski moved beyond Tarasoff
by suggesting that therapists must meet very strict warning standards
in order to properly discharge their duty to protect.
• State Tarasoff limiting statutes limit the duty to protect to specific victims and
limit liability to therapists once the duty is discharged. In most statutes, the duty
to protect arises only after one of two conditions is met.
1) If the patient explicitly threatens a named or otherwise clearly identifiable
victim.
2) If the patient makes no explicit threat, but has a history of violence and there is
very good reason to believe that the patient will commit serious violence, this may
also trigger a duty.
The therapist satisfies the duty by warning the potential victim or appropriate
authorities, or by hospitalizing the patient either on a voluntary or involuntary
basis. All statutes immunize therapists against suit for breach of confidentiality
when the therapist makes a good faith warning. Three states' statutes California,
Colorado, and Washington require the therapist to warn both the potential victim
as well as the police.