| Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Decided July 1, 1976 | |
| Full case name | Vitali Tarasoff, et al., Plaintiffs-Petitioners v. Regents of the University of California, et al., Defendants-Respondents. |
| Citation(s) | 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14 |
| Case history | |
| Prior history | Appeal from sustained demurrer |
| Holding | |
| Psychotherapists have a duty to protect an individual they reasonably believe to be at risk of injury on the basis of a patient's confidential statements. | |
| Court membership | |
| Chief Justice | Donald Wright |
| Associate Justices | Raymond L. Sullivan, Marshall F. McComb, Matthew O. Tobriner, William P. Clark, Jr., Stanley Mosk, Frank K. Richardson |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Tobriner, joined by Wright, Sullivan, Richardson |
| Concur/dissent | Mosk |
| Dissent | Clark, joined by McComb |
Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14 (Cal. 1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of California held that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by a patient. The original 1974 decision mandated warning the threatened individual, but a 1976 rehearing of the case by the California Supreme Court called for a "duty to protect" the intended victim. The professional may discharge the duty in several ways, including notifying police, warning the intended victim, and/or taking other reasonable steps to protect the threatened individual.