Tarasoff Rule (Tarasoff I & Tarasoff II) Duty warn and Duty to Protect

Tarasoff Rule (Tarasoff 1 & Tarasoff 2) Duty warn and Duty to Protect

The Tarasoff case, officially Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (1976), is a landmark legal case in the United States that set the precedent for the duty of mental health professionals to protect potential victims of their patients.

In 1969, Prosenjit Poddar, a student at the University of California, Berkeley, began therapy at the university's student health services. His therapist learned during sessions that Poddar had intentions of harming Tatiana Tarasoff. Despite efforts to warn the campus police and have Poddar detained, he was released.

Tragically, Poddar later carried out his threat and killed Tatiana Tarasoff.

The lawsuit filed by the Tarasoff family alleged that the university and the therapists failed to warn Tatiana or her family about the danger she faced. The California Supreme Court, in its decision, established the duty of mental health professionals to warn potential victims or take reasonable steps to protect them from foreseeable harm. This duty has since become a crucial aspect of mental health law, influencing similar legal standards in other jurisdictions.

The Tarasoff rules, also known as Tarasoff I and Tarasoff II, pertain to the duty of mental health professionals to warn and protect potential victims when a patient poses a serious threat. Tarasoff I established the duty to warn, while Tarasoff II expanded it to include the duty to protect, meaning taking steps to prevent harm. These rules originated from a legal case (Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California) and vary by jurisdiction, but generally emphasize the importance of balancing patient confidentiality with the protection of potential victims from foreseeable harm.