551 P.2d 334, 342 (Cal. 1976)
On October 27, 1969, Prosenjit Poddar killed Tatiana Tarasoff.1 Two months earlier, Poddar, a voluntary outpatient receiving therapy at Cowell Memorial Hospital at the University of California at Berkeley, confided his intention to kill an unnamed girl, readily identifiable as Tatiana, to his therapist Dr. Lawrence Moore.2
Moore, with the concurrence of Dr. Gold who had initially examined Poddar and Dr. Yandell, assistant to the director of the department of psychiatry, decided that Poddar should be committed for observation in a mental hospital.3 Moore orally notified Officers Atkinson and Teel of the campus police that he would request commitment.4 He then sent a letter to Police Chief William Beall requesting assistance in securing Poddar's confinement.5
Officers Atkinson, Brownrigg, and Halleran took Poddar into custody but released him after determining he was rational on his promise to stay away from Tatiana.6 Dr. Harvey Powelson, director of the department of psychiatry at Cowell Memorial Hospital, then asked the police to return Moore's letter, directed that all copies of the letter and notes Moore had taken as therapist be destroyed, and ordered no action to place Poddar in a 72-hour treatment and evaluation facility.7
Poddar persuaded Tatiana's brother to share an apartment with him near Tatiana's residence. Shortly after her return from spending the summer in Brazil, Poddar went to her residence and killed her.
Plaintiffs, Tatiana's mother and father, filed separate but virtually identical second amended complaints against the therapists Moore, Powelson, Gold, and Yandell, the police defendants Atkinson, Beall, Brownrigg, Halleran, and Teel, and the Regents of the University of California as their employer.8 The first cause of action alleged failure to detain a dangerous patient.9 The second cause of action alleged failure to warn on a dangerous patient.10 The third cause of action sought punitive damages against Powelson for abandonment of a dangerous patient.11 The fourth cause of action alleged breach of primary duty to patient and the public.12
The superior court sustained defendants' demurrers to the second amended complaints without leave to amend.13 The case reached the Supreme Court of California on appeal from the judgment of the superior court.14
Whether the psychotherapists owed a duty to warn Tatiana Tarasoff or her parents of the danger posed by their patient?15
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.16 The discharge of this duty may require the therapist 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.17
Yes. On October 27, 1969, Prosenjit Poddar killed Tatiana Tarasoff. Two months earlier, Poddar, a voluntary outpatient receiving therapy at Cowell Memorial Hospital at the University of California at Berkeley, confided his intention to kill an unnamed girl, readily identifiable as Tatiana, to his therapist Dr. Lawrence Moore. Moore, with the concurrence of Dr. Gold who had initially examined Poddar and Dr. Yandell, assistant to the director of the department of psychiatry, decided that Poddar should be committed for observation in a mental hospital.
Moore orally notified Officers Atkinson and Teel of the campus police that he would request commitment. He then sent a letter to Police Chief William Beall requesting assistance in securing Poddar's confinement. The pleadings allege that the therapists did in fact predict that Poddar would kill Tatiana.18 The complaint alleges that the therapists knew of Poddar's intent to kill Tatiana.19 The complaint further alleges that the therapists failed to warn Tatiana or her parents of the peril.20
The relationship between a therapist and his patient satisfies the special relationship requirement that supports affirmative duties for the benefit of third persons.21
The psychotherapists owed a duty to warn Tatiana or her parents.22
Related opinions on this issue
I concur in the result reached by the majority only because the complaints allege that defendant therapists did in fact predict that Poddar would kill and were therefore negligent in failing to warn of that danger.23 Thus the issue here is very narrow: we are not concerned with whether the therapists, pursuant to the standards of their profession, should have predicted potential violence; they allegedly did so in actuality.24 Under these limited circumstances I agree that a cause of action can be stated.25
Whether plaintiffs can ultimately prevail is problematical at best.26 As the complaints admit, the therapists did notify the police that Poddar was planning to kill a girl identifiable as Tatiana.27 While I doubt that more should be required, this issue may be raised in defense and its determination is a question of fact.28
I cannot concur, however, in the majority's rule that a therapist may be held liable for failing to predict his patient's tendency to violence if other practitioners, pursuant to the standards of the profession, would have done so.29 The question is, what standards?30 Defendants and a responsible amicus curiae, supported by an impressive body of literature discussed at length in our recent opinion in People v. Burnick, demonstrate that psychiatric predictions of violence are inherently unreliable.31
Joined by Justice Mccomb
I dissent from the majority's holding that the psychotherapists had a duty to warn Tatiana or her parents.32 The majority's holding will have a devastating effect on the practice of psychotherapy.33 The psychotherapist's primary duty is to his patient.34
The introduction of a third party into the therapist-patient relationship will destroy the confidentiality necessary for effective treatment.35 Patients will be reluctant to reveal their innermost thoughts if they know that their confidences may be revealed to third parties.36 The majority's holding will also discourage patients from seeking therapy.37 Many potential patients will decide not to seek treatment if they know that their confidences may be revealed.38
Whether the psychotherapists are immune from liability under the California Tort Claims Act for failure to warn Tatiana or her parents?39
Government Code section 820.2 provides that a public employee is not liable for an injury resulting from his act or omission. This applies where the act or omission was the result of the exercise of the discretion vested in him, whether or not such discretion be abused. Immunity under section 820.2 affords protection only for basic policy decisions.40
No. The decision whether to warn is not a basic policy decision.41 It does not involve a determination of fundamental policy.42 Rather, it is the type of decision which involves the physician's professional judgment.43 The therapist defendants' failure to warn Tatiana or those who reasonably could have been expected to notify her of her peril does not fall within the absolute protection afforded by section 820.2 of the Government Code.44
The psychotherapists are not immune from liability under the California Tort Claims Act for failure to warn Tatiana or her parents.45
Whether the psychotherapists are immune from liability under the California Tort Claims Act for failure to confine Poddar?46
Government Code section 856 affords public entities and their employees absolute protection from liability for any injury resulting from determining in accordance with any applicable enactment whether to confine a person for mental illness.47 The scope of the immunity extends not only to the final determination to confine or not to confine the person for mental illness, but to all determinations involved in the process of commitment.48
Yes. Plaintiffs allege Powelson ordered that no actions leading to Poddar's detention be taken.49 This conduct reflected Powelson's determination not to seek Poddar's confinement and thus falls within the statutory immunity.50 Moore's decision that Poddar be confined was not a proximate cause of Tatiana's death.51 Moore's failure to overcome Powelson's decision is protected under section 856 as functionally equivalent to determining not to seek Poddar's confinement.52
The psychotherapists are immune from liability under the California Tort Claims Act for failure to confine Poddar.53
Whether the police defendants owed a duty to warn Tatiana or her parents or to confine Poddar?54
A duty of care may arise from a special relation between the actor and the third person. This imposes a duty upon the actor to control the third person's conduct. Or, a special relation between the actor and the other gives to the other a right of protection. Plaintiffs plead no relationship between Poddar and the police defendants which would impose upon them any duty to Tatiana.55
No. Plaintiffs suggest no theory and plead no facts that give rise to any duty to warn on the part of the police defendants absent such a special relationship.56 Plaintiffs have therefore failed to show that the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer of the police defendants without leave to amend.57
The police defendants owed no duty to warn Tatiana or her parents or to confine Poddar.58
Whether the police defendants are immune from liability for releasing Poddar from custody?59
Welfare and Institutions Code section 5154 provides that the professional person in charge of the facility providing 72-hour treatment and evaluation, his designee, and the peace officer responsible for the detainment of the person shall not be held civilly or criminally liable for any action by a person released at or before the end of 72 hours.60 Although defendant police officers technically were not peace officers as contemplated by the Welfare and Institutions Code, plaintiffs' assertion that the officers incurred liability by failing to continue Poddar's confinement clearly contemplates that the officers were responsible for the detainment of Poddar.61 The officers are entitled to the protections which that code prescribed for such peace officers.62
Yes. Although defendant police officers technically were not peace officers as contemplated by the Welfare and Institutions Code, plaintiffs' assertion that the officers incurred liability by failing to continue Poddar's confinement clearly contemplates that the officers were responsible for the detainment of Poddar. The officers are entitled to the protections which that code prescribed for such peace officers.
The police defendants are immune from liability for releasing Poddar from custody.63