Your Darkest Thoughts are NOT Protected!

Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14, 551 P.2d 334 (Cal. 1976)
https://casetext.com/case/tarasoff-v-regents-of-university-of-california?

Plaintiffs' complaints predicate liability on two grounds: defendants' failure to warn plaintiffs of the impending danger and their failure to bring about Poddar's confinement pursuant to the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Welf. Inst. Code, § 5000 ff.) Defendants, in turn, assert that they owed no duty of reasonable care to Tatiana and that they are immune from suit under the California Tort Claims Act of 1963 (Gov. Code, § 810 ff.).

We shall explain that defendant therapists cannot escape liability merely because Tatiana herself was not their patient. (1) When a therapist determines, or pursuant to the standards of his profession should determine, that his patient presents a serious danger of violence to another, he incurs an obligation to use reasonable care to protect the intended victim against such danger. The discharge of this duty may require the therapist to take one or more of various steps, depending upon the nature of the case. Thus it may call for him to warn the intended victim or others likely to apprise the victim of the danger, to notify the police, or to take whatever other steps are reasonably necessary under the circumstances.

Follow Uncivil Law on Discord (blackleaf): https://discord.gg/4cYdVEs
Follow Uncivil Law on Twitter: https://twitter.com/UncivilLaw
Follow Uncivil Law on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/UncivilLaw
Follow Uncivil Law on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/uncivillaw

Send me Stuff:
Mailbox temporarily closed

Camera: Sony A5100
Lens: Sigma 30mm F 1.4
Mic: Rode NT1A

This channel provides general information about law. The content of this channel does not provide individual or specific legal advice for any specific situation. Consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction for specific legal questions.