Your cart is currently empty!
M09.03.005 Tarasoff Decision: Duty to Warn and Duty to Protect
The Tarasoff Decision establishes a counselor’s dual responsibilities to warn potential victims and to protect them from harm, arising from the 1976 California Supreme Court case Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California. This landmark ruling mandates that mental health professionals must breach confidentiality if a client poses a threat to someone else.
Case Summary
A student at a California counseling center told his counselor he intended to kill another individual. Although the counselor reported the threat to the police, they did not take further steps to inform the potential victim or ensure additional protective measures. Tragically, the student later killed the person he had threatened. The court determined that the counselor and the counseling center were liable because they failed to adequately warn and protect the victim.
Key Actions for Counselors in Threat Situations
- Attempt to Detain the Individual Making the Threat
The initial response should be to contain or delay the person making the threat if possible, allowing for time to take further protective actions. - Contact Law Enforcement
Notifying the police is critical to ensure that proper steps are taken to neutralize the threat through official intervention. - Warn and Notify the Potential Victim
Every reasonable attempt should be made to directly inform the potential victim of the threat, enabling them to take precautionary measures.
Recommended Protocol for Counselors
| Step | Action |
|---|---|
| Detain | Attempt to detain or delay the individual expressing intent to harm. |
| Notify Police | Contact local authorities to report the threat and request assistance. |
| Warn Victim | Make every reasonable effort to alert the potential victim of the danger. |
Points to Remember
- Dual Responsibility: Counselors have both a duty to warn potential victims and a duty to protect them from harm.
- Legal Precedent: Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California sets a legal precedent requiring counselors to take reasonable action to prevent foreseeable harm.
- Ethical Implications: Mental health professionals must balance confidentiality with public safety, prioritizing the well-being of potential victims when credible threats are made.
Bibliography
- California Supreme Court. Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14 (1976).
- Stone, A. A. (1976). “The Tarasoff Decisions: Suing Psychotherapists to Safeguard Society.” Harvard Law Review, 90(2), 358–387.