Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

2 results

  • 5 - Commentary on Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California

  • from Part II - The Classics
  • Edited by Martha Chamallas, Ohio State University, Lucinda M. Finley, University at Buffalo, State University of New York
  • Book:
    Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Tort Opinions
    Published online:
    28 November 2020
    Print publication:
    10 December 2020, pp 93-118

  • Summary

    Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California is a famous and still controversial decision by the California Supreme Court that held that a campus psychotherapist owed a duty to warn a woman whom his patient had threatened to kill. When the patient carried out his threat, the victim’s family sued the University, claiming that the therapist and campus police failed to exercise reasonable care to protect their daughter. The rewritten feminist opinion goes beyond the original majority opinion and imposes a duty on both the therapist and the campus police. It reveals the full story of the Berkeley student’s stalking and delusional romance with the victim and reframes the case as one of gender violence. Under the feminist judgment, victims of domestic violence would have a right to call on the state for protection against physical harm. The accompanying commentary explains the struggle on the California Supreme Court and the difficulties of holding law enforcement accountable in sexual and domestic violence cases.

  • The psychiatrist’s duty to protect

  • James L. Knoll IV
  • Journal:
    CNS Spectrums / Volume 20 / Issue 3 / June 2015
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    25 February 2015, pp. 215-222

  • Responding to the California Supreme Court’s decision and its related legal obligations in Tarasoff v. Regents of Univ. of California over 30 years ago has become a standard part of mental health practice. This case influenced legal requirements governing therapists’ duty to protect third parties in nearly every state in the country. The final ruling in Tarasoff emphasized that therapists have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by their patients.

    This article will provide a brief overview and update on duty to protect legal requirements. Clinical guidelines for addressing threats and the duty to protect will be discussed, along with risk management approaches. The article will conclude with a sample vignette illustrating these principles.