AAPL Landmark: Duty to Protect

Question 1

What was the ruling in Tarasoff v. Regents, 551 P.2D 334 (1976)

Answer 1

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.

Question 2

What was the ruling in Lipari v. Sears, 497 F. Supp. 1985?

Answer 2

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.

Question 3

What was the ruling in Petersen v. Washington, 671 P.2D 230 (1983)

Answer 3

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.

Question 4

What was the ruling in Jablonski v. US., 712 F.2D 391 (1983)

Answer 4

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.

Question 5

What was the ruling in Naidu v. Laird, 539 A.2D 1064 (1988)?

Answer 5

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.”