Titre du document / Document title
Tarasoff and the duty to protect
Auteur(s) / Author(s)
SIMONE Simone (1 2) ;
FULERO Solomon M. (3) ;
Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s)
(1) Sinclair College in Dayton, Ohio, ETATS-UNIS
(2) Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio, ETATS-UNIS
(3) Kent State University, ROYAUME-UNI
Résumé / Abstract
The Tarasoff I and Tarasoff II cases were decided by the California Supreme Court in 1974 and 1976, respectively. These cases involved the murder of a young woman by her ex-boyfriend, who had been a patient at a University counseling center. The parents of the young woman sued, alleging negligence. Tarasoff I set forth a duty to warn on the part of psychotherapists. Upon rehearing in Tarasoff II, the decision was upheld but modified. The court ruled that when a therapist determines, or should have determined, that a patient presents a serious danger of violence to another, the therapist has a duty to protect that other person. In this article, we address subsequent cases that have arisen under the duty to protect doctrine, and analyze some of the legal issues that these cases have raised.
Revue / Journal Title
Journal of aggression, maltreatment & trauma
ISSN
1092-6771
Source / Source
2005, vol. 11, n
o 1-2 (287 p.) [Document : 24 p.] (3 p.3/4), [Notes: notes dissem.], pp. 145-168 [24 page(s) (article)]
Langue / Language
Anglais
Editeur / Publisher
Haworth Press, Binghamton, NY, ETATS-UNIS
(1997)
(Revue)
Mots-clés anglais / English Keywords
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
Mots-clés français / French Keywords
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
Mots-clés espagnols / Spanish Keywords
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
Mots-clés d'auteur / Author Keywords
;
;
;
;
Localisation / Location
INIST-CNRS, Cote INIST : 26510, 35400013846226.0110
Nº notice refdoc (ud4) : 17080954
