VITALY TARASOFF et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA et al., Defendants and Respondents
S.F. No. 23042
Supreme Court of California
17 Cal. 3d 425; 551 P.2d 334; 131 Cal. Rptr. 14; 1976 Cal. LEXIS 297; 83 A.L.R.3d 1166
Superior Court of Alameda County, No. 405694, Robert L. Bostick, Judge.
Introduction
The plaintiffs are the parents of the deceased Tatiana Tarasoff accused the defendants Gold,Moore, Powelson, Yandell, and the Regents of the University of California of failing to act when informed by their patient Prasenjit Poddar about his intention to murder their daughter. They believed their daughter’s murder on October 27 1969 could have been avoided if she was aware of Poddar’s expressed threats.
Facts
In August 1969, Prosenjit Poddar (Poddar) a graduate student studying at the University of California had relationship issues with Tatiana Tarasoff (Tatiana). These issues escalated and resulted in Poddar seeking counseling from Dr. Lawrence Moore, a psychologist employed by the University of California at Berkeley. After several sessions, Poddar informed Dr. Moore about his intentions to kill Tatiana. Moore acted and informed campus police of the threat and requested that psychiatric hospital see Poddar. The campus police detained Poddar and soon released …show more content…
Gov't Code § 820.2, a public employee is not liable for an injury resulting from his act or omission where the act or omission was the result of the exercise of the discretion vested in him, whether or not such discretion was abused. There is a line between discretionary policy decisions which enjoy statutory immunity and ministerial administrative acts which do not. Section 820.2 affords immunity only for "basic policy decisions” (Supreme Court of California, 1976). Therefore because of this state statute, the police were immune from the charges
S.F. No. 23042
Supreme Court of California
17 Cal. 3d 425; 551 P.2d 334; 131 Cal. Rptr. 14; 1976 Cal. LEXIS 297; 83 A.L.R.3d 1166
Superior Court of Alameda County, No. 405694, Robert L. Bostick, Judge.
Introduction
The plaintiffs are the parents of the deceased Tatiana Tarasoff accused the defendants Gold,Moore, Powelson, Yandell, and the Regents of the University of California of failing to act when informed by their patient Prasenjit Poddar about his intention to murder their daughter. They believed their daughter’s murder on October 27 1969 could have been avoided if she was aware of Poddar’s expressed threats.
Facts
In August 1969, Prosenjit Poddar (Poddar) a graduate student studying at the University of California had relationship issues with Tatiana Tarasoff (Tatiana). These issues escalated and resulted in Poddar seeking counseling from Dr. Lawrence Moore, a psychologist employed by the University of California at Berkeley. After several sessions, Poddar informed Dr. Moore about his intentions to kill Tatiana. Moore acted and informed campus police of the threat and requested that psychiatric hospital see Poddar. The campus police detained Poddar and soon released …show more content…
Gov't Code § 820.2, a public employee is not liable for an injury resulting from his act or omission where the act or omission was the result of the exercise of the discretion vested in him, whether or not such discretion was abused. There is a line between discretionary policy decisions which enjoy statutory immunity and ministerial administrative acts which do not. Section 820.2 affords immunity only for "basic policy decisions” (Supreme Court of California, 1976). Therefore because of this state statute, the police were immune from the charges