Unfolding Tarasoff: Case of Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California

1. Case Title & Citation 

Full name of the case: Vitaly Tarasoff et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. The Regents  of the University of California et al., Defendants and Respondents (1976) 

Official citation: 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14 (Cal. 1976) 

2. Court Name & Bench 

Name of the court: Supreme Court of California 

Name of the judges: The seven Justices deciding the case were: 

1. Chief Justice Donald Wright 
2. Justice Matthew O. Tobriner (Authored the Majority Opinion) 
3. Justice Raymond L. Sullivan 
4. Justice Frank K. Richardson 
5. Justice Stanley Mosk (Wrote a separate Concurring and Dissenting Opinion) 
6. Justice William P. Clark, Jr. (Wrote a Dissenting Opinion)
7. Justice Marshall F. McComb 

Bench type: En Banc 

3. Date of Judgment 

First Judgment (later Overruled): 23rd December 1974 

Final Judgment: 1st July 1976 

4. Parties Involved 

Petitioner(s) / Appellant(s): Vitaly Tarasoff and Lydia Tarasoff (Parents of the victim: 

Tatiana Tarasoff) 

Brief description: The plaintiff was the parents of the victim. They had filed a suit  against the defendants, claiming failure to warn against the intentions of a patient  who intended to murder the victim. 

Respondent(s) / Defendant(s): The Regents of the University of California 

Brief description: The defendants were accused of not restraining a patient who  intended to murder the victim. The patient goes on to murder the victim.  Additionally, the defendants did not warn the victim of their patient’s intentions. 

5. Facts of the Case 

In 1969, a patient receiving therapy in the University of California’s Cowell Memorial  Hospital expressed his intention to kill the victim. His therapist decided to admit him  to the hospital for observation. The therapist later notified the police regarding the  same, but the patient was released after promising to stay away from the intended  victim. The letter written by the therapist to the police station was returned, and his  notes were destroyed along with the copies of the letter. The patient also broke all ties  with the hospital. 

Later, on October 27, 1969, the victim was brutally murdered as intended by the  patient. During the hearing of this case, which the victim’s parents filed against the  defendants, a significant issue came into light regarding the relationship between a  psychotherapist and a patient.  

The first case, also called Tarasoff-I, ended with the bench establishing a “duty to  warn”. It was a vacated ruling. The second and final judgment established a more  flexible and broad principle of “duty to protect” which entailed the therapist having  the right to protect the intended and include warning the victim, notifying the police,  confining the patient, etc.

6. Issues Raised 

Does a psychotherapist have a responsibility to protect a third party?

 Between the privacy of a patient and public safety, where can the line be drawn? 

Will the defendant therapists and campus police be immune from liability under  California’s statutory immunity provisions (specifically relating to discretionary  acts and failure to diagnose/confine a patient) for their failure to protect the  victim? 

7. Arguments of the Parties 

Key contentions by the Petitioner/Appellant: The plaintiffs claimed that despite  knowing that the patient intended to kill the victim, the defendants did not warn the  victim, confine the patient, and the police also released the patient. These all led to the  unfortunate death of the victim. The harm was foreseeable, and the public safety had to  be prioritized clearly. They argued that the defendants were liable and did not have the  immunity granted by the government statutes, as this case was not only concerned with  confidentiality but also public safety. 

Key contentions by the Respondent/Defendant: The defendants, on the other hand,  pleaded that the case be dismissed as they held no duty of care towards the victim, who  was a third party. They argued that the confidentiality of the patient was paramount,  and they could not possibly foresee the patient killing the victim. They also mentioned  the statutory immunity granted by the government. 

Relevant statutes or case laws referred:  

Cited by Respondents – California Evidence Code§1014, California  Government Code§820.2, California Government Code§856 

Cited by Appellants – Rowland v. Christian (1968)

8. Judgment / Final Decision 

The California Supreme Court reversed the previous ruling, stating that the defendants  were negligent and should have used “reasonable care to protect” the victim. The  landmark case established the “duty to protect”, a principle broader than the “duty to  warn” principle, bestowing the duty of protecting the third party against any possible  harm caused by a patient upon their psychotherapist. The new principle was more  flexible than the previous one.  

The court stated that the police and the doctors were not shielded under the governmental  statutes, as they overlooked the obvious and foreseeable danger that came to the victim. 

9. Legal Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi 

This whole case really boiled down to a single, question: should the private connection  between a therapist and their patient create a special duty to protect outsiders? The crux  of the argument was foreseeability. Once the therapist knew that the patient was a  serious danger to the victim, she became totally foreseeable victim who needed  protection. 

The court decided that the bond the therapist has with the patient carries a responsibility  that absolutely has to extend to others who might be at risk. Because the therapists hold a  huge level of influence over the patient. 

Also, effective treatment is vital, but the court said it cannot come at the cost of someone  else’s life or safety. This made public safety just as important as the confidentiality of e  patient. The “Duty to Protect” provides a flexible solution that balances public safety and  confidentiality of their patient.  

The court cited important precedents like: Rowland v. Christian (Cal. 1968), Restatement (Second) of Torts § 315, Lucas v. City of Juneau (Alaska 1963) 

10. Conclusion 

Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California is a landmark case that significantly  changed the ethics and laws around mental health care and professional responsibility.  

The key aspect of this case is that it established the “Tarasoff Rule,” also known as the  “Duty to Protect.” This created an important but limited exception to the basic rule of 

psychotherapist-patient confidentiality. The case altered the balance between a  professional’s responsibility to their patient and their duty to keep the public safe.  

Essentially, Tarasoff serves as a constant reminder in torts, professional negligence, and  legal ethics that the privilege of confidentiality must give way when disclosure is  necessary to prevent harm to others. This imposes a clear, life-saving obligation on  mental health professionals throughout the United States.