RT Journal Article SR Electronic T1 Back to the Past in California: A Temporary Retreat to a Tarasoff Duty to Warn JF Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online JO J Am Acad Psychiatry Law FD American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law SP 523 OP 528 VO 34 IS 4 A1 Robert Weinstock A1 Gabor Vari A1 Gregory B. Leong A1 J. Arturo Silva YR 2006 UL http://jaapl.org/content/34/4/523.abstract AB The original Tarasoff decision created a duty for California psychotherapists to warn potential victims of their patients. After rehearing the matter two years later, the California Supreme Court, in the landmark second Tarasoff decision, changed the duty to warn to a duty to protect potential victims, with warning as only one of the options for discharging that duty. Despite this change, the Tarasoff duty frequently was referred to erroneously as a duty to warn. This misunderstanding and an ambiguous California immunity statute culminated in “simplified” jury instructions and two appellate court decisions in 2004 in which it was assumed without question that there was a duty to warn, with liability for not doing so regardless of rationale. As a result of persistent lobbying by the California Psychiatric Association and other mental health groups, a recent bill corrected the problem created by the courts, returning the Tarasoff duty to a duty to protect.