AAPL Landmark: Duty to Protect Flashcards
What was the ruling in Tarasoff v. Regents, 551 P.2D 334 (1976)
The California Supreme Court ruled that a therapist has a duty to warn individuals threatened by patients in Tarasoff I in 1974. In 1976, Tarasoff II the CSC ruled that the “special relationship” between provider and patient created a duty to protect others from a dangerous patient based upon the logic of foreseeability.
What was the ruling in Lipari v. Sears, 497 F. Supp. 1985?
The Nebraska Supreme Court extended the reasoning of Tarasoff to Nebraska, and affirmed that a special relationship exist imposing an affirmative action to protect third parties from a dangerous patient. the victim did not need to be readily identifiable but could be a “class of persons” who could be “reasonably foreseen” to be harmed by the dangerous patient.
What was the ruling in Petersen v. Washington, 671 P.2D 230 (1983)
The Washington Supreme Court opined that a psychiatrist’s duty to third parties includes protecting foreseeable victims from potential danger caused by a patient’s noncompliance with medication.
What was the ruling in Jablonski v. US., 712 F.2D 391 (1983)
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that a mental health professional’s duty to predict dangerousness included consulting a patient’s prior medical records, and that their duty to protect includes the involuntary commitment of a dangerous individual; simply warning the foreseeable victim is insufficient.
What was the ruling in Naidu v. Laird, 539 A.2D 1064 (1988)?
The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed that the special relationship between patient-psychiatrist creates a “broad-based obligation to protect the public from potentially violent patients.”