Tarasoff Rule

Question 1

Tarasoff case
(minority outcome)

Answer 1

UC Berkeley student killed, therapist of killer didn’t warn anyone.
Established an affirmative duty of dr./therapists when he learns if a patients intent to harm a 3rd party victim, to take reasonable precautions given the circumstances to warn the potential victim. (Duty to warn)
Mass-express threat to kill, clear & present danger and no COA against dr. for disclosing.

Question 2

Rule

Answer 2

Therapist has a duty when learns of a patient’s intent to harm 3rd party, to take reasonable precautions given circumstances to warn the potential victim of danger.

Question 3

Scalia discusses circumstances triggering it

Answer 3

specific foreseeability

Question 4

test for intervening criminal actor

Answer 4

“creation of opportunity ..reasonably foreseeable someone would’ve availed himself of opportunity?”

[This] + Scalia’s specific foreseeability (did foresee THIS GUY gonna do it?) Tarasoff good for both, brady not so.