Negligence Tort Case Study

Negligence occurs when a particular person fails to perform a duty that they are entitled to perform. According to laws.com, there are four things that must occur in or-der for a tort to be a negligence tort, “a person must owe a duty or service to the victim in question; the individual who owes the duty must violate the promise or obligation; an injury then must arise because of that specific violation; and the injury causes must have been reasonably foreseeable as a result of the person’s negligent actions. (laws.com)” The decision in the case, Tarasoff vs. Regents of University of California, demonstrates these four qualifying factors, therefore making it a negligence tort case.
The circumstances surrounding the case Tarasoff v. University …show more content…
Regents of the University of California, there is without a doubt someone other than Poddar to be held liable, but on-ly the regents of the University of California should be liable, not Poddar’s therapist (Dr. Moore) and not the campus police. The campus police shouldn’t, and were not held liable because the claim against them is that they released Poddar after “knowing” he was a danger to Tarasoff, yet there is a difference between an assumption and having proof, and if the police would have continued to have held Poddar they could have had a lawsuit against them for false imprisonment, which is to restrain someone against their will and without reasonable cause. Poddar’s therapist, Dr. Moore, shouldn’t have been held liable (although he was in this case) because he did attempt to take action against Poddar’s threats, but was obligated to consult with his supervisor (Dr. Powelson), who advised to contact the campus police, and when nothing came of that, to then rip up the proof that he had against Poddar (his notes from the sessions). Dr. Moore did everything within his power to protect Tarisoff, and if he would have taken further measures to do so he would have risked possible termination from his employer for not obeying his su-perior, a possible lawsuit from Poddar for defamation, which is to make a false state-ment about someone written or verbally (because the proof was disposed of), or a pos-sible lawsuit from Poddar for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Dr. Moore could have gotten sued for these things because they both have to do with saying some-thing so outrageous about another person that it affects them to the extent of tarnishing their name or causing them emotional distress, and for Dr. Moore to say that Poddar was planning on killing someone, and then Poddar never attempting to commit the act is that type of outrageous. Finally, the regents of the University of California should have