The duty of psychotherapists to warn threatened third persons of serious danger from their patients was established by the California Supreme Court in Tarasoff v. Regents. After a rehearing, the court in a second opinion modified its holding to provide for a more flexible duty. The author discusses the second opinion, its place in developing concepts of liability, and the major criticisms of the holding. The Note discusses the problem of foreseeability and proposes a standard of care.
Brad Stuart Seligman,
Untangling Tarasoff: Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California,
29 Hastings L.J. 179
Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol29/iss1/9