Assent is the agreement of someone not able to give legal consent to participate in the activity. 1025, 1063. This article explores the development of this issue over the last 20 years, with a focus on ways that Tarasoff has and has not affected clinical practice. 4. Section 815.2 of the Government Code declares that “[a] public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment if the act or omission would, apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of action against that employee or his personal representative.”   The section further provides, with exceptions not applicable here, that “a public entity is not liable for an injury resulting from an act or omission of an employee of the public entity where the employee is immune from liability.”   The Regents, therefore, are immune from liability only if all individual defendants are similarly immune. at p. 251, 447 P.2d at p. 363;  cf. ), The assurance of confidentiality is essential to bringing about full disclosure since the psychiatric patient approaches treatment with conscious and unconscious inhibitions to revealing his innermost thoughts. Relying on Johnson, we conclude that defendants in the present case are not immune from liability for their failure to warn of Tatiana's peril. In some settings (i.e., treatment discharge planning), risk assessment also includes a specification of the risk factors present in a case and the risk management or intervention strategies that would be necessary to mitigate risk. No one warned Tatiana of her peril. Section 856 also insulates Dr. Moore for his conduct respecting confinement, although the analysis in his case is a bit more subtle. See, e.g., Tarasoff, 551 P.2d at 345 n.11 (“[Therapists and their amicus] also argue that warnings must be given only in those cases in which the therapist knows the identity of the victim. 0000001047 00000 n In Hergenrether v. East (1964) 61 Cal.2d 440, 39 Cal.Rptr. 146 0 obj << /Linearized 1 /O 148 /H [ 1047 925 ] /L 309570 /E 32366 /N 31 /T 306531 >> endobj xref 146 31 0000000016 00000 n (See Gov.Code, §§ 825–825.6, 995–995.2.) Thus, for example, a hospital must exercise reasonable care to control the behavior of a patient which may endanger other persons.8  A doctor must also warn a patient if the patient's condition or medication renders certain conduct, such as driving a car, dangerous to others.9, Although the California decisions that recognize this duty have involved cases in which the defendant stood in a special relationship both to the victim and to the person whose conduct created the danger,10 we do not think that the duty should logically be constricted to such situations. We emphasize that our conclusion does not raise the specter of therapists employed by government indiscriminately held liable for damages despite their exercise of sound professional judgment. WASHINGTON, July 2—Following are excerpts from the Supreme Court's decisions today in the death penalty cases: We address initially the basic contentention that the punishment of … We also noted in Johnson that federal courts have consistently categorized failures to warn of latent dangers as falling outside the scope of discretionary omissions immunized by the Federal Tort Claims Act.16  (See United Air Lines, Inc. v. Weiner (9th Cir.1964) 335 F.2d 379, 397–398, cert. Relying on sections 1013, 1014, and 1024 of the Evidence Code, the majority suggests that, in any event, the new duty's harmful impact on the community has already been balanced by the Legislature in favor of warning. The swiftness of change—economic, cultural, and moral—produces accelerated tensions in our society, and the potential for relief of such emotional disturbances offered by psychological therapy undoubtedly establishes it as a profession essential to the preservation of societal health and well-being.”   (In re Lifschutz (1970) 2 Cal.3d 415, 421–422, 85 Cal.Rptr. 402.) Patients will be helped only if they can form a trusting relationship with the psychiatrist. at p. 248, 447 P.2d at p. 0000028341 00000 n In Baby Doe’s case, the birth defect was a correctable condition that would have allowed to him to eat normally. As we stated previously, a duty to warn may also arise from a voluntary act or undertaking by a defendant. A Japanese American family brings their maternal grandmother to their primary care physician. 0000017860 00000 n 2. Whether a violent act was considered foreseeable and therefore supportive of actionable negligence depends on the specific circumstances, nature of the impulsive aggression, and jurisdictional law. But their powers over the appellate courts are limited. If in the exercise of reasonable care the therapist can warn the endangered party or those who can reasonably be expected to notify him, we see no sufficient societal interest that would protect and justify concealment. 703.) As the present case illustrates, a patient with severe mental illness and dangerous proclivities may, in a given case, present a danger as serious and as foreseeable as does the carrier of a contagious disease or the driver whose condition or medication affects his ability to drive safely. Section 5201 of the Welfare and Institutions Code provides:  “Any individual may apply to the person or agency designated by the county for a petition alleging that there is in the county a person who is, as a result of mental disorder a danger to others, or to himself, or is gravely disabled, and requesting that an evaluation of the person's condition be made.”   We believe that defendant therapists' power to recommend confinement as provided by section 5201 suffices to place them within the class of persons protected by section 856 of the Government Code. The Landmark Case of Tarasoff and Beyond This action revolves around the murder of a girl by an individual who had previously informed his therapist of his intention to kill her.