Supreme Court Case Study: The Tarasoff Case

The Tarasoff case is the case that “established a clinician’s duty to warn” (Mottarella, n.d.). Prosenjit Poddar, a student at University of California Berkeley (UCAL) was a patient of Dr. Lawrence Moore, a psychologist a hospital affiliated with UCAL. Poddar was seeking treatment for an emotional breakdown after being romantically rejected by Tatiana Tarasoff. In the course of therapy Poddar related to Dr. Moore his intent to kill Tarasoff that fall. Dr. Moore conferred with his superiors at the facility and the determination, customary at that time, was made to have Poddar involuntarily committed. Dr. Moore notified the campus police and requested that Poddar be picked up, warning that Poddar can appear quite rational at times. Campus
The case had two major points, the failure to commit Poddar, and the failure to warn Tatiana of the imminent danger. An important detail to note about this case is that it was decided by the Supreme Court of California not once, but twice. The first decision led to the duty to warn precedent. This decision clearly stated that the regents were liable for failure to warn Tarasoff of the danger she was in. The decision was so unpopular that the Supreme Court decided the case a 2nd time, leading to what is on the books as the current legal decision, the regents were found liable for their failure to protect Tarasoff from Poddar. This may seem like a mere difference in semantics, however, the real difference is how the victim is protected. With a duty to warn, the only option is to breech confidentiality and warn the victim of the imminent danger. This can have, what some fear, a detrimental effect on the therapist, patient relationship. However, with a duty to protect, there are additional options beyond automatically warning the victim, including involuntary confinement, or notifying law enforcement. This allows a therapist options to handle the situation based on everyone’s best