Letters

Editor:

We are writing to correct a significant error in our article in the March issue, “No Duty to Warn in California: Now Solely and Unambiguously a Duty to Protect” (Ref. 1, p 107). The following sentence is incorrect in the last full paragraph in the right column: “Also judges and juries are likely to be more impressed by clinicians trying to do the most protective thing for patients as opposed to merely protecting themselves.” We meant to convey that courts and juries would be more impressed by clinicians trying to do the most protective thing for potential victims. The difference is important, since courts and juries are unlikely to be sympathetic to protecting potentially violent patients at the expense of protecting potential victims.

This error is especially significant, since some involved in risk management in California, despite the changes in the law that now permit flexibility when needed, are still advising that the potential victim should always be warned and the police notified when a duty to protect arises, mainly because these actions confer immunity in California. We agree that in most situations a therapist wants “safe harbor” immunity by warning the potential victim and notifying the police. The point of our paper, though, is that there are rare situations in which warning the potential victim is likely to increase the danger. In such situations, clinicians with true concern about protecting the victim may assume a very small liability risk and use a more protective alternative. The potential liability should be minimal so long as there is documentation explaining how warning the potential victim may exacerbate the risk, while the alternative action could afford more protection.