Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...

Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California | 551 P.2d 334 (1976)

The law recognizes that certain confidential relationships are important, and it protects statements made within those relationships. A parishioner confessing to a priest; a client confiding in a lawyer, or a patient revealing embarrassing personal information to a doctor; all may count on their confidential information remaining confidential.

But as with most legal principles, confidentiality isn’t absolute. The California Supreme Court considered the relationship between doctor-patient confidentiality and tort law’s duty requirement in Tarasoff versus Regents of the University of California.

Tatiana Tarasoff attended the University of California with a man named Prosenjit Poddar. They met in September 1967 and began dating. But by New Year’s Eve, it became clear that Poddar was far more serious about their relationship than Tatiana was. Tatiana told him she was dating other men, and wasn’t going to become intimate or exclusive with Poddar.

Poddar didn’t take the rejection well. He became severely depressed, and eventually began therapy sessions with Doctor Lawrence Moore, a university hospital psychologist.

In August 1969, Poddar told Doctor Moore that he was going to kill Tatiana. Doctor Moore determined that Poddar should be involuntarily committed to a mental hospital. He asked university police to take Poddar into custody. However, when the officers picked him up, they decided that he appeared rational. Poddar promised the officers he’d stay away from Tatiana, and they released him. Thereafter, Doctor Moore’s supervisor, Doctor Harvey Powelson, directed him to cease trying to confine Poddar.

In October, Poddar went to Tatiana’s home. There he stabbed her to death.

Tatiana’s parents sued the university, claiming that Doctor Moore owed Tatiana or her parents a duty to warn them that Poddar was a danger.

The Alameda County Superior Court dismissed the Tarasoffs’ complaint. The California Court of Appeal affirmed, and the Tarasoffs appealed to the California Supreme Court.

Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/tarasof...

The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...

Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/tarasof...

Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_...
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Facebook ►   / quimbeedotcom  
Twitter ►   / quimbeedotcom  
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries