Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California

551 P.2d 334 · California Supreme Court · 1976

Facts

Prosenjit Poddar killed Tatiana Tarasoff after confiding his intent to his psychologist, Dr. Moore. Dr. Moore and other therapists attempted to confine Poddar, but he was released, and no one warned Tatiana or her parents of the danger. Tatiana's parents sued the therapists and police for negligence.

Issue

Does a psychotherapist have a duty to warn an identifiable third party when their patient expresses a serious intention to harm that person? Are therapists and police immune from liability for failure to warn or failure to confine?

Holding

The court held that therapists have a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect foreseeable victims of their patients' violence, which may include warning the victim. The therapists were not immune for failure to warn, but were immune for failure to confine. The police were immune from liability.

Rule

When a therapist determines, or should determine, that a patient poses a serious danger of violence to an identifiable victim, the therapist has a duty to use reasonable care to protect the victim, which may include warning the victim or others. This duty outweighs patient confidentiality where public peril begins.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed 2026-01-07. Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.