Poddar (a student at Berkeley) confided to his
psychologist (Moore) that he wanted to kill Tarasoff. Moore informed the
campus police, who questioned Poddar, but nothing else was done, and
Tarasoff was not notified.
Moore advised the police to have Poddar involuntarily
committed.
Go Bears!
Two months later, Poddar killed Tarasoff. Tarasoff's
parents sued Moore, the campus police, and their employer (Univ.
California) for negligence.
The Trial Court dismissed the case. Tarasoff appealed.
The Trial Court felt that the defendants owed no duty
of care.
The California Supreme Court reversed and remanded for
trial.
The California Supreme Court found that the relationship
between the psychologist and his patient qualifies as a special
relationship which creates a duty to care beyond the standard common
law duty.
Of course, this special relationship is between
Moore and Poddar, not Moore and Tarasoff.
However, such a relationship may support affirmative
duties for the benefit of third persons.
Univ. California argued that imposing a duty to care for
third parties is unworkable because psychologists cannot accurately
predict what patients are going to do.
Forcing disclosure could damage patient-doctor
privilege.
Moore argued that if psychologists were forced to break
doctor-patient privilege and warn about potentially violent patient,
patients wouldn't trust their therapists, and that would be detrimental
to the psychologist's ability to provide care to their patients.
Basically the California Supreme Court said that
doctor–patient privilege must yield to the extent to which disclosure is
essential to prevent danger to others. Protective privilege ends where
public peril begins.
This ruling only established that there was a duty to
care, the case was remanded to determine if Moore actually breached
the duty.
One could argue that Moore met the standard by alerting
the police.
Restatement of Torts says that a special duty to
care is created when there is a special relationship between
two people, and one could argue that the psychologist-patient relationship
is a special relationship. But that duty to care is
generally thought of as a duty to care for the patient, not a duty to care
for people the patient might injure.
Is there a difference?
Poddar was found not guilty by reason of insanity. The
criminal trial had been appealed up to this same California Supreme Court
that decided this civil case.
If Poddar could not be held accountable for his actions,
who could?
