Pre-Law: Psychology and the Law

Circumstances of the Case
Tatiana Tarasoff was murdered by Prosenjit Poddar in October 1969. Tatiana's parents alleged that Poddar had told his University of California-employed therapist, Dr. Lawrence Moore, of his intention to murder Tatiana. They also alleged that Dr. Moore had informed campus police about Poddar's plans, but that Poddar had been released by the authorities following a short detention. Tatiana's parents argued that they, or their daughter, should have been informed of Poddar's threat by the therapists and the Regents of the University of California.

Original Ruling
In dismissing the defendant's second amended complaint, the Superior Court of Alameda County dismissed the parents' action on the grounds that the plaintiffs had not established a reasonable case against the police, therapists, or University of California Regents. 

Ruling in the Appeal
The court held that the plaintiffs could amend their complaint to bring a valid cause of action against the therapists and the Regents of the University of California for breach of duty to exercise reasonable care. However, it was determined that the police did not have the requisite relationship with Tatiana Tarasoff to warn her of Poddar's intention.

Explanation of "Duty" in Relation to the Case
"Duty" in the Tarasoff case refers to the duty imposed by law to use reasonable precautions to protect others from harm that is reasonably foreseeable. The decision states that a defendant has an obligation of care to protect everyone who could reasonably be put in danger by their actions, including any dangers that could render their actions unreasonable. The court highlighted that liability is only imposed if the defendant has a unique relationship with either the potential victim or the dangerous individual when preventing foreseeable harm requires the defendant to regulate the behavior of another party or to warn of such behavior. The Legal Information Institute states that "duty" in law relates to the need to uphold a fair degree of care to save others from unreasonable risks of harm.

Explanation of "Failure to Warn" and "Special Relationship to the Patient"
   - Failure to Warn: Failure to warn refers to the legal liability of a professional, such as a therapist, who fails to warn potential victims when they know or should have known that their patient poses a danger to others. In the Tarasoff case, the therapists were found to have a duty to warn Tatiana or her parents of the threat posed by Poddar but failed to do so. According to the Legal Information Institute, "Failure to Warn" refers to a situation where a party has a duty to warn of a danger and fails to do so, resulting in harm to another party.
   
   - Special Relationship to the Patient: In the context of the Tarasoff case, a "special relationship" refers to the relationship between a therapist and a patient, which imposes a duty on the therapist to take steps to protect potential victims when they know or should have known that their patient poses a danger to others. According to the American Bar Association, a "special relationship" refers to a relationship between two parties that gives rise to a legal duty to protect one party from harm caused by the other party.