The Case of Tatiana Tarasoff vs California Board of Regents October 27, 1969 Tatiana Tarasoff was killed by Prosenjit

Poddar a foreign exchange student at the University of California at Berkley. Poddar had pursued a romantic relationship with Tarasoff, who repeatedly rejected his advances Poddar sought treatment at the schools health facility and was assigned to a clinical psychologist who diagnosed him with paranoid schizophrenia. Poddar spoke about his anger and rage at Tarasoff and explained his plans to kill her. The psychologist found his threats to be substantiated and could (through deduction) identify the potential victim. He consulted two psychiatrists who also examined Poddar and concurred with the finding. They initiated civil commitment procedures; however the chief of psychiatry at the Cowell Memorial Hospital countermanded the findings and instructed staff to release Poddar. His therapist then made a report to campus police. The police issued a pick up order for Poddar. He was found and questioned. The police determined that he was not a risk and let him go after he agreed to stay away from Tarasoff. Poddar discontinued his therapy. Two months later, Poddar committed the murder of Tatiana Tarasoff after she rejected him once more. Tarasoffs parents sued the university, the therapist, and the police for negligence. The case went to the California Supreme Court who found that the defendants were negligent in not notifying Tarasoff that she had been the subject of a homicidal threat (although Poddar never specifically mentioned her by name). Specifically, the court ruled that the therapist is liable if (1) they should have known about the dangerousness based on accepted professional standards of conduct, and (2) they failed to exercise reasonable care in warning the potential victim. Tarasoffs parents won a civil award of $600,000 (3 million + in 2000 dollars). One half of the settlement was paid by the State of California (School and Police) and the other half was paid by the psychologist (out of pocket) The findings sparked laws in virtually every state to change and include statutory requirements for notification and duty to warn those against whom threats have been made. The debate between rules of confidentiality and privilege and duty to warn has existed ever since.