Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California
Summary of Case
This case pitted Tatiana Tarasoff’s parents (plaintiffs) against the Regents of the University of California. In this case, it was argued that in October 1969, Prosenjit Poddar killed Tatiana Tarasoff after expressing his intention to execute his plan to his therapist, Dr. Lawrence Moore, who was an employee of the University of California. The plaintiffs further argued that Dr. Moore warned police of Poddar's intentions, but Poddar was released after a brief detention by the police. The plaintiffs asserted that there was the failure to confine Poddar despite him having expressed …show more content…
Moore, owe a duty of care to every individual foreseeable threatened or endangered by the conduct or health condition of a patient, bearing in mind all risks that make the patient's behavior or health status unreasonably dangerous. The mental health professional can discharge his or her duty in such a scenario by informing the police, warning the intended victim, or taking any other reasonable steps to protect the intended victim. In a situation where the avoidance of foreseeable threat or harm requires a mental health professional to control the conduct of another person or warn of such conduct, liability is imposed only if there is a special relationship between the health professional and the dangerous person or to the potential victim.
Relevant NM Case Law
A case related to the above case is Wilschinsky v. Medina. In this case, it is also evident that a health professional fails to inform the third party (the public) of the impending threat or danger that can be posted by Medina's conduct or health condition after treatment. In both cases, health experts involved owe a duty of care to third parties who may foreseeable be harmed by a patient’s conduct or health condition.
Summary of NM …show more content…
Like in Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, Dr. Straight owes a duty to third parties (the public including Wilschinsky) who foreseeably may be harmed by the patient. Dr. Straight was aware of Medina’s state and health condition as well as the threat it posed to her when it comes to driving in public. The fact that Dr. Straight was not joined in the lawsuit is not understandable. However, it remains important that health experts must inform third parties about the risk of injuries or harm posed by patients (“Wilschinsky v. Medina,” 1989).
Synopsis of the Rule and Reasoning NM Case
In this case, the court reasoned and ruled that, as a matter of law, the doctor owed a duty to the public who might be injured or harmed by the patient's impaired ability to drive that followed the physician's administration of powerful drugs in his office. The court further ruled that Dr. Straight was tasked with following adequate medical procedures. The court argued that Wilschinsky’s cause of action falls within the purpose of the New Mexico Medical Malpractice Act and order the pursuance of the same based on the set
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California
Summary of Case
This case pitted Tatiana Tarasoff’s parents (plaintiffs) against the Regents of the University of California. In this case, it was argued that in October 1969, Prosenjit Poddar killed Tatiana Tarasoff after expressing his intention to execute his plan to his therapist, Dr. Lawrence Moore, who was an employee of the University of California. The plaintiffs further argued that Dr. Moore warned police of Poddar's intentions, but Poddar was released after a brief detention by the police. The plaintiffs asserted that there was the failure to confine Poddar despite him having expressed …show more content…
Moore, owe a duty of care to every individual foreseeable threatened or endangered by the conduct or health condition of a patient, bearing in mind all risks that make the patient's behavior or health status unreasonably dangerous. The mental health professional can discharge his or her duty in such a scenario by informing the police, warning the intended victim, or taking any other reasonable steps to protect the intended victim. In a situation where the avoidance of foreseeable threat or harm requires a mental health professional to control the conduct of another person or warn of such conduct, liability is imposed only if there is a special relationship between the health professional and the dangerous person or to the potential victim.
Relevant NM Case Law
A case related to the above case is Wilschinsky v. Medina. In this case, it is also evident that a health professional fails to inform the third party (the public) of the impending threat or danger that can be posted by Medina's conduct or health condition after treatment. In both cases, health experts involved owe a duty of care to third parties who may foreseeable be harmed by a patient’s conduct or health condition.
Summary of NM …show more content…
Like in Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, Dr. Straight owes a duty to third parties (the public including Wilschinsky) who foreseeably may be harmed by the patient. Dr. Straight was aware of Medina’s state and health condition as well as the threat it posed to her when it comes to driving in public. The fact that Dr. Straight was not joined in the lawsuit is not understandable. However, it remains important that health experts must inform third parties about the risk of injuries or harm posed by patients (“Wilschinsky v. Medina,” 1989).
Synopsis of the Rule and Reasoning NM Case
In this case, the court reasoned and ruled that, as a matter of law, the doctor owed a duty to the public who might be injured or harmed by the patient's impaired ability to drive that followed the physician's administration of powerful drugs in his office. The court further ruled that Dr. Straight was tasked with following adequate medical procedures. The court argued that Wilschinsky’s cause of action falls within the purpose of the New Mexico Medical Malpractice Act and order the pursuance of the same based on the set