Case Analysis Of Tarasoff Case

1033 Words5 Pages
Tarasoff duty to warn/ protect is practiced by the therapist or psychologist to determine serious threat of violence to another and they have reasonable care to warn and protect the potential victims when there were foreseeable danger (Small, 2010). In Tarasoff case, the client, Poddar was intended to kill his formal girlfriend, Tarasoff (Small, 2010). His personal psychologist was told about it. However, no action was taken and this actually causes Poddar in carrying out his threat that he killed Tarasoff (Small, 2010). The psychologist in-charge in were then sued for not being able to inform the potential victim so that she can take precaution and protect herself from being harm (Small, 2010). After several court cases, therapist is required and has the rights of duty to warn the third parties to prevent any violent danger ready…show more content…
His father did tell the therapist, Goldstein about the idea of his son hurting other and the therapist urge that it is better to have his son hospitalized (Koocher and Spiegel, 2013). However, after some time, the client took out his action and actually killed himself and the person, Ewing who is his former girlfriend’s current boyfriend (Koocher and Spiegel, 2013). Goldstein was then sued by Ewing’s father for not being able to warn their child from the risk (Koocher and Spiegel, 2013). Even when therapist did not get to meet his client and was not informed about the intention of the client to harm others, he was told by the client’s father about his client’s intention (Koocher and Spiegel, 2013). Hence, the court further states that the therapist have the duty to warn the client and also the third parties in order to protect them from any foreseeable danger after communicating with the immediate family member or friends (Koocher and Spiegel,
Open Document