Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California case brief

Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California case brief summary
551 P.2d 334 (Cal. 1976)

CASE SYNOPSIS

Plaintiffs appealed the judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County (California) dismissing plaintiffs' action based on failure of duty to warn of impending danger and failure to confine under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 5000ff.

CASE FACTS
Defendants, therapists and police, did not confine a patient who expressed intentions to kill victim, nor warn victim of patient's intentions. Patient killed victim. Plaintiffs, victim's parents, filed suit against defendants, alleging failure to warn of impending danger, and failure to confine patient under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 5000ff. Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted.


DISCUSSION

• On appeal, the court affirmed dismissals against defendant police on all claims, holding there was no duty to plaintiffs, and defendant therapists for failure to confine, holding they were protected by governmental immunity. 
• The court reversed the dismissal of the failure to warn claim, holding that defendant therapists' special relationship to patient was extended to victim, and a duty existed to use reasonable care where they had knowledge that patient was going to harm victim. 
• Governmental immunity did not protect defendant therapists from liability for such a ministerial administrative act.

CONCLUSION
The court dismissed plaintiffs' claims against defendant police, and against defendant therapist for failure to confine, but reversed against defendant therapists for failure to warn, holding the special relationship to patient was extended to victim, and they had a duty to use reasonable care in warning victim of the danger.



Suggested Study Aids For Tort Law