0 0
Supreme Court of California - 17 Cal. 3d 425
The legal case establishes that therapists have a legal duty to protect potential victims from patients who pose a serious danger of violence, even if there is no special relationship between the therapist and the victim. The therapist's duty to protect the public takes precedence over their duty of confidentiality to their patient. Liability can be imposed for injury caused by a person's lack of ordinary care or skill, and a duty to use ordinary care and skill arises when one person is in a position that, if they do not use such care, they would cause danger of injury to another person or property. The police defendants are immune from liability for releasing the patient after his brief confinement. The plaintiff can amend their complaints to state a cause of action against defendant therapists for failing to exercise reasonable care to protect the victim from the patient's serious danger of violence. The superior court's judgment in favor of some defendants is upheld, but the judgment in favor of other defendants is reversed, and the case is sent back for further proceedings.
This legal case discusses the liability of therapists for failing to predict a patient's violent tendencies. The majority rule holds therapists accountable based on professional standards, but a dissenting judge argues that psychiatric predictions of violence are unreliable. The case of Burnick is cited as an example of doubts about the reliability of psychiatric predictions. The dissenting opinion suggests changing the rule to make psychiatrists responsible for warning of potential violence when they predict it. The importance of confidentiality in the treatment of mentally ill patients is also discussed, with the dissenting opinion arguing that imposing a duty to warn would harm treatment. The Legislature has already decided that effective and confidential treatment is preferred over a duty to warn. The majority's new duty is likely to increase violence and goes against the balance achieved by the Legislature's Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, which establishes the therapist's duty to not disclose confidential information and records obtained during the provision of services to either voluntary or involuntary recipients of services. The majority has erred by focusing on the "dangerous patient exception" to the psychotherapist-patient privilege in Evidence Code sections 1014 and 1024, instead of the act's detailed provisions. The majority's imposition of a duty to warn is in direct conflict with the act, which strictly prohibits the disclosure of all information obtained during the provision of services under division 5. Imposing a duty to warn based on general tort principles creates a dilemma for therapists, as it forces them to either violate the act or incur potential civil liability. The majority must specifically enumerate the circumstances under which the act applies and when general tort principles will govern.
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.