Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Duties to Third Parties

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Psychiatry and the Law

  • 56 Accesses

Abstract

The Tarasoff decisions in California have had a national impact on state laws, court decisions, and clinical practice addressing patient threats and clinicians’ duties to third parties. However, these duties remain one of the more complicated and confusing areas of psychiatric practice regulation. Although liability concerns receive much of the attention, these must be balanced with clinical and moral considerations. Beyond the critiques of various laws themselves, the difficulties inherent in violence prediction have led some to advocate for a focus on the information at hand (rather than probabilities) and on the clinical treatment directed by this information. In practice, clinicians should know their local state regulations regarding duties to third parties. When a patient makes a concerning threat or presents a danger to another person, a clinician should complete a thorough assessment of the patient, including collateral, and develop a thoughtful plan for treating the patient and managing the identified risks. The clinician should carefully document the assessment and plan and the rationale behind her or his decisions. If clinicians are unsure about how to proceed, they should consider clinical or legal consultation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Tarasoff v. The Regents of the University of California. P2d: Supreme Court of California; 1974. p. 553.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Tarasoff v. The Regents of the University of California. P2d: Supreme Court of California; 1976. p. 334.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Walcott DM, Cerundolo P, Beck JC. Current analysis of the Tarasoff duty: an evolution towards the limitation of the duty to protect. Behav Sci Law. 2001;19(3):325–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Johnson R, Persad G, Sisti D. The Tarasoff rule: the implications of interstate variation and gaps in professional training. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2014;42(4):469–77.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lipari v. Sears Roebuck And Co. FSupp: U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska; 1980. p. 185.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Peck v. Counseling Service of Addison County, Inc. A2d: Supreme Court of Vermont; 1985. p. 422.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Jablonski v. United States. F2d: 9th Circuit; 1983. p. 391.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Naidu v. Laird. A2d: Supreme Court of Delaware; 1988. p. 1064.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Petersen v. Washington. P.2d: Supreme Court of Washington; 1983. p. 230.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Pettis RW. Tarasoff and the dangerous driver: a look at the driving cases. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 1992;20(4):427–37.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pettis RW, Gutheil TG. Misapplication of the Tarasoff duty to driving cases: a call for a reframing of theory. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 1993;21(3):263–75.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Knoll JL. The psychiatrist’s duty to protect. CNS Spectr. 2015;20(3):215–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Soulier MF, Maislen A, Beck JC. Status of the psychiatric duty to protect, circa 2006. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2010;38(4):457–73.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mossman D. Critique of pure risk assessment or, Kant Meets Tarasoff. U Cincinnati Law Rev. 2006;75:523–609.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bragg v. Valdez. 3 California Reporter: California Court of Appeal; 2003. p. 804.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kachigian C, Felthous AR. Court responses to Tarasoff statutes. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2004;32(3):263–73.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Weinstock R, Vari G, Leong GB, Silva JA. Back to the past in California: a temporary retreat to a Tarasoff duty to warn. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2006;34(4):523–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Volk v. DeMeerleer. 386 P.3d: Supreme Court of Washington; 2016. p. 254.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Piel JL, Opara R. Does Volk v DeMeerleer conflict with the AMA Code of Medical Ethics on breaching patient confidentiality to protect third parties? AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(1):10–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Weinstock R, Bonnici D, Seroussi A, Leong GB. No duty to warn in California: now solely and unambiguously a duty to protect. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2014;42(4):533.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Levin A. APA signs onto amicus brief supporting confidentiality. Psychiatric News [Internet]. http://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.pn.2016.8b4. Accessed 8 Nov 2016.

  22. Weinstock R, Darby WC, Bonnici DM, Seroussi A, Leong GB. The ever-evolving duty to protect in California. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2015;43(2):262.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gutheil TG. Moral justification for Tarasoff-type warnings and breach of confidentiality: a clinician’s perspective. Behav Sci Law. 2001;19(3):345–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Mossman D. The imperfection of protection through detection and intervention. Lessons from three decades of research on the psychiatric assessment of violence risk. J Legal Med. 2009;30(1):109–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Zonana H. Physicians should not be agents of the police. Psychiatr Serv. 2005;56(8):1021.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Herbert PB, Young KA. Tarasoff at twenty-five. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2002;30(2):275–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Buchanan A, Binder R, Norko M, Swartz M. Psychiatric violence risk assessment. Am J Psychiatry. 2012;169(3):340.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Buchanan A. Risk of violence by psychiatric patients: beyond the “actuarial versus clinical” assessment debate. Psychiatr Serv. 2008;59(2):184–90.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Borum R, Reddy M. Assessing violence risk in Tarasoff situations: a fact-based model of inquiry. Behav Sci Law. 2001;19(3):375–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Sreenivasan S, DiCiro M, Rokop J, Weinberger LE. Addressing systemic bias in violence risk assessment. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2022;50(4):626–35.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Wilson JP, Hugenberg K, Rule NO. Racial bias in judgments of physical size and formidability: from size to threat. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2017;113(1):59–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Lam JN, McNiel DE, Binder RL. The relationship between patients' gender and violence leading to staff injuries. Psychiatr Serv. 2000;51(9):1167–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Robbins PC, Monahan J, Silver E. Mental disorder, violence, and gender. Law Hum Behav. 2003;27(6):561–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Skeem J, Schubert C, Stowman S, Beeson S, Mulvey E, Gardner W, Lidz C. Gender and risk assessment accuracy: underestimating women’s violence potential. Law Hum Behav. 2005;29(2):173–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Skeem JL, Mulvey EP, Odgers C, Schubert C, Stowman S, Gardner W, Lidz C. What do clinicians expect? Comparing envisioned and reported violence for male and female patients. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2005;73(4):599–609.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Choe JY, Teplin LA, Abram KM. Perpetration of violence, violent victimization, and severe mental illness: balancing public health concerns. Psychiatr Serv. 2008;59(2):153–64.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Swanson JW. Mental disorder, substance abuse, and community violence: an epidemiological approach. In: Monahan J, Steadman H, editors. Violence and mental disorder. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1994. p. 101–36.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Swanson JW, McGinty EE, Fazel S, Mays VM. Mental illness and reduction of gun violence and suicide: bringing epidemiologic research to policy. Ann Epidemiol. 2015;25(5):366–76.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Rice ME, Harris GT. The treatment of mentally disordered offenders. Psychol Public Policy Law. 1997;3(1):126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Felthous AR, Kachigian C. To warn and to control: two distinct legal obligations or variations of a single duty to protect? Behav Sci Law. 2001;19(3):355–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Felthous AR. Warning a potential victim of a person’s dangerousness: clinician’s duty or victim’s right? J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2006;34(3):338–48.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Beck JC. When the patient threatens violence: an empirical study of clinical practice after Tarasoff. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 1982;10(3):189–201.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Warren LJ, Mullen PE, Ogloff JR. A clinical study of those who utter threats to kill. Behav Sci Law. 2011;29(2):141–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). Mental Health Professionals’ Duty to Warn [Internet]. Updated 3/16/2022. https://www.ncsl.org/health/mental-health-professionals-duty-to-warn. Accessed 2 Nov 2023.

  45. Lambert K, Wertheimer M. What is my duty to warn? Psychiatric News [Internet]. http://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176%2Fappi.pn.2016.1b1. Accessed 1 Nov 2016.

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Juan Guzman-Rodriguez for his assistance with summarizing the Tarasoff cases.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine, VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA, USA

    Katherine Michaelsen

Authors
  1. Katherine Michaelsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katherine Michaelsen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Frank H. Netter MD School of Medicine, Quinnipiac University, North Haven, CT, USA

    Tobias Wasser

  2. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston, TX, USA

    Rocksheng Zhong

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Michaelsen, K. (2024). Duties to Third Parties. In: Wasser, T., Zhong, R. (eds) Psychiatry and the Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-52589-6_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-52589-6_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-52588-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-52589-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation