Tarasoff versus Regents of the California University - Case Study Example

Table of Contents I. Citation 2 II. Facts 2 III. Issue 3 IV. Decision 4 V. Reason 4 References 6 I. Citation The case name is Tarasoff vs. Regents of the University of California, 551 P. 2d 334 (1976). Tarasoff et al are the plaintiffs, while the Regents of the University of California et al are the defendants. The full name of the case is Vitaly Tarasoff et al. . The Regents of the University of California et al. The decision was penned by the Supreme Court of California, and it is there registered as 17 Cal. 3D 425; 551 P.2d 334; 131 Cal. Rptr. . The decision was penned on 14 July 1, 1976. (Gostin, 2002; Stanford University, n.d.; 4LawSchool, 2012; Walcott, Cerundolo and Beck, 2001; CaseBriefs, 2013; Ewing, 2005; Southern Utah University, n.d.). II. Facts The plaintiffs are the parents of the murdered Tatiana Tarasoff, from the hands of Prosenjit Poddar, who was in turn a patient at the Cowell Memorial Hospital, a facility affiliated with the University of California. The plaintiffs alleged that the psychiatrists at the hospital, knowing of the harm to their daughter, were duty-bound to issue warnings to their daughter as well as to them. The plaintiff's action was termed “sustaining a demurrer to Defendant’s second amended complaint”. This was dismissed by the California court handling the case, the Superior Court of Alameda County, on grounds that the plaintiffs failed to make a claim that had validity against the defendants, who are made up of the four psychiatrists who handled Poddar's case, the University of California Regents, and the police. The plaintiffs appealed and asked for a review of the case (Gostin, 2002; Stanford University, n.d.; 4LawSchool, 2012; Walcott, Cerundolo and Beck, 2001; CaseBriefs, 2013; Ewing, 2005). Taking a step back, the facts center on the murder of Tatiana Tarasoff by Poddar in October of 1969. The parents made the allegation that Poddar had made known his intention to commit the crime to the psychiatrist defendants. Dr. Moore, the lead psychiatrist, did inform the police, but the police released Poddar. The parents made the assertion of twin grounds for their legal action. One is that the failure of the defendants to issue warnings to Tatiana and the plaintiffs of the danger to the life of Tatiana. The other is with regard to the failure on the part of the defendants to cause the detention of Poddar, being a danger to Tatiana. The defendants countered that they had immunity from such legal actions. Also, they countered that they had no duty owed to Tatiana's care (Gostin, 2002; Stanford University, n.d.; 4LawSchool, 2012; Walcott, Cerundolo and Beck, 2001; CaseBriefs, 2013; Ewing, 2005; Southern Utah University, n.d.): 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.). (Stanford University, n.d.; Gostin, 2002). III. Issue Were the defendants liable for the murder of Tatiana, and do they have a debt to the victim with regard to a duty to protect and to warn against the danger that Poddar posed on the victim's life? Put another way, was the failure on the part of the defendants to warn the parents and Tatiana a culpable duty breach with regard to protecting the public and their patients? (Gostin, 2002; Stanford University, n.d.; 4LawSchool, 2012; Walcott, Cerundolo and Beck, 2001; CaseBriefs, 2013; Ewing, 2005; Southern Utah University, n.d.). IV. Decision In gist, the court ruled that the legal duties of the defendants extend beyond their patient Poddar, to Tatiana, as the potential victim of Poddar. In both cases the defendants were liable to be scrutinized in a court of law, by jury and by judge. In particular, the court decided that the plaintiffs can pursue an amendment of the case that they are pursuing, to validate an action cause against the psychiatrists, as well as the University of California Regents (Gostin, 2002; Stanford University, n.d.; 4LawSchool, 2012; Walcott, Cerundolo and Beck, 2001; CaseBriefs, 2013; Ewing, 2005). V. Reason The court ruled that indeed ,the psychiatrists could cite immunity from suit under the law, as far as detaining Poddar was concerned. On the other hand, the court also ruled that just because Tatiana was not their patient, the psychiatrists could get away scot free and be freed of any accountability with regard to her death. As the court states (Gostin, 2002; Stanford University, n.d.): 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 (Stanford University, n.d.) Moreover, while the law does shield the public employees from suit with regard to the failure to detain Poddar, the law does not extend to protecting the psychiatrists from suit because they failed in the act of warning Tatiana and the parents Gostin, 2002; Stanford University, n.d.; 4LawSchool, 2012; Walcott, Cerundolo and Beck, 2001; CaseBriefs, 2013; Ewing, 2005): No specific statutory provision, however, shields them from liability based upon failure to warn Tatiana or others likely to apprise her of the danger, and Government Code section 820.2 does not protect such failure as an exercise of discretion. Plaintiffs therefore can amend their complaints to allege that, regardless of the therapists' unsuccessful attempt to confine Poddar, since they knew that Poddar was at large and dangerous, their failure to warn Tatiana or others likely to apprise her of the danger constituted a breach of the therapists' duty to exercise reasonable care to protect Tatiana (Stanford University, n.d.) References 4LawSchool (2012). Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California Case Brief. 4LawSchool.com. Retrieved from http://www.4lawschool.com/torts/uc.htm CaseBriefs (2013). Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California. CaseBriefs.com. Retrieved from http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/torts-keyed-to-dobbs/the-duty-to-protect-from-third-persons/tarasoff-v-regents-of-university-of-california/ Ewing, C. (2005). Tarasoff Reconsidered. Monitor on Psychology 2005/American Psychological Association. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug05/jn.aspx Gostin, L. (2002). Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California 551 P.2d 334 (1976). Public Health Law and Ethics: A Reader. Southern Utah University (n.d.). The Case of Tatiana Tarasoff vs. California Board of Regents. suu.edu. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=tarasoff%20vs.%20regents%20california&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CGIQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.suu.edu%2Ffaculty%2Fbarney%2FPSY%25204340%2FThe%2520Case%2520of%2520Tatiana%2520Tarasoff%2520vs%2520California%2520Board%2520of%2520Regents.doc&ei=2oz-ULyqE4WMrgef5IDQBA&usg=AFQjCNEJ6C7f6BUtF0VNqO0gy3InFB49lQ&bvm=bv.41248874,d.bmk&cad=rja Stanford University (n.d.). Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California , 17 Cal.3d 425 . Stanford.edu. Retrieved from http://www.stanford.edu/group/psylawseminar/Tarsoff%20I.htm Walcott, D., Cerundolo, P. and Beck, J. (2001). Current Analysis of the Tarasoff Duty: an Evolution Towards the Limitation of the Duty to Protect. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 19. Retrieved from http://www.4lawschool.com/torts/uc.htm Read More