Expanded Liability for Psychiatrists: Tarasoff Gone Crazy?

Abstract

This paper is intended to serve as an update for psychiatrists on notable developments of the Tarasoff doctrine in the United States and United Kingdom. Most clinicians will be familiar with the basic Tarasoff doctrine. However, the author suspects that many clinicians will be troubled to learn the extent to which Tarasoff liability has extended in some jurisdictions.

Accordingly, the first part of this paper addresses notable judicial treatment of Tarasoff in several state jurisdictions within the United States. The second part discusses the more conservative approach of the United Kingdom, which affords clinicians discretion to warn potential victims in certain circumstances. The United Kingdom has struggled with, and so far rejected, the imposition of a Tarasoff-duty. However, a recent decision of the European Court of Human Rights opens the door for something comparable to Tarasoff in the United Kingdom. The final part offers a critique of the Tarasoff doctrine and suggests that other jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, may be wise to avoid this problematic doctrine.