Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Past Issues
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Print Subscriptions
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • About the Academy
    • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • AAPL

User menu

  • Alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
  • AAPL
  • Alerts
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Past Issues
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Print Subscriptions
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • About the Academy
    • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
Article CommentaryAnalysis and Commentary

No Duty to Warn in California: Now Unambiguously Solely a Duty to Protect

Robert Weinstock, Daniel Bonnici, Ariel Seroussi and Gregory B. Leong
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online March 2014, 42 (1) 101-108;
Robert Weinstock
Dr. Weinstock is Health Sciences Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Drs. Bonnici and Seroussi are Residents in Psychiatry, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA. Dr. Leong is Clinical Professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daniel Bonnici
Dr. Weinstock is Health Sciences Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Drs. Bonnici and Seroussi are Residents in Psychiatry, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA. Dr. Leong is Clinical Professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
MD, JD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ariel Seroussi
Dr. Weinstock is Health Sciences Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Drs. Bonnici and Seroussi are Residents in Psychiatry, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA. Dr. Leong is Clinical Professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gregory B. Leong
Dr. Weinstock is Health Sciences Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Drs. Bonnici and Seroussi are Residents in Psychiatry, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA. Dr. Leong is Clinical Professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

In 2013, legislation went into effect clarifying that the Tarasoff duty in California is now unambiguously solely a duty to protect. Warning the potential victim and the police is not a requirement, but a clinician can obtain immunity from liability by using this safe harbor. In situations in which a therapist believes warning might exacerbate the patient's risk, however, alternative protective actions can satisfy the duty to protect. For a clinician to be found liable, those alternative actions would have to be proven negligent. This flexibility can sometimes be crucial in protecting potential victims and thereby, indirectly, patients from the consequences of dangerous action. Explaining the reasoning for the action chosen should obviate any significant liability risk of doing the right thing, even without immunity. Legislation was enacted in 2007 as an attempt to clarify the requirement, but the revised immunity statute at the time retained the phrase duty to warn and protect, which perpetuated the now-eliminated confusion. Correctly understanding the California law is important to avoid having the restored flexibility eroded again by belief in a nonexistent duty to warn. The Tarasoff duty originated in California, but since many other states later established similar duties, the developments in California may have national implications.

Footnotes

  • Disclosures of financial or other potential conflicts of interest: None.

  • © 2014 American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
View Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online: 42 (1)
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online
Vol. 42, Issue 1
1 Mar 2014
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in recommending The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law site.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
No Duty to Warn in California: Now Unambiguously Solely a Duty to Protect
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
No Duty to Warn in California: Now Unambiguously Solely a Duty to Protect
Robert Weinstock, Daniel Bonnici, Ariel Seroussi, Gregory B. Leong
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online Mar 2014, 42 (1) 101-108;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
No Duty to Warn in California: Now Unambiguously Solely a Duty to Protect
Robert Weinstock, Daniel Bonnici, Ariel Seroussi, Gregory B. Leong
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online Mar 2014, 42 (1) 101-108;
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Historical Evolution of Tarasoff Duties
    • First Statutory Revision to Correct the Problem
    • Revised Jury Instructions
    • Case Examples
    • Current Revised Immunity Statute
    • Discussion and Opinion
    • Conclusion
    • Appendix
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Toward Aspirational Forensic Mental Health Practice
  • Methamphetamine-Associated Psychosis and Criminal Responsibility
  • Ethics Challenges in Correctional Mental Health
Show more Analysis and Commentary

Similar Articles

Site Navigation

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive
  • Information for Authors
  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts

Other Resources

  • Academy Website
  • AAPL Meetings
  • AAPL Annual Review Course

Reviewers

  • Peer Reviewers

Other Publications

  • AAPL Practice Guidelines
  • AAPL Newsletter
  • AAPL Ethics Guidelines
  • AAPL Amicus Briefs
  • Landmark Cases

Customer Service

  • Cookie Policy
  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Order Physical Copy

Copyright © 2025 by The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law