In 1974 in the initial ruling the court opined that “where a psychotherapist had reason, arising out of a professional relationship with a patient, to believe, or reasonably should have believed, that the patient was intending to harm a specific victim, that a duty existed to warn that victim” (Mills, 1984). In 1976 the court revised and updated its opinion, adding to the obligation to warn the intended victim with the need to take actions to protect the intended victim such as by contacting the police, and possibly by even usi… Accordingly, the court entered an order granting a new trial. psychotherapist a serious threat of physical violence against a reasonably identifiable victim or victims. ... if the therapist asserts that the therapist is immune from liability under. In 1985 the California legislature adopted a statute on a psychotherapist ' s duty to warn. post-sale duty to warn. at 547-48. Goldstein claimed he was not subject to liability because the … This law states that a therapist does not have a duty "to warn of and protect from a patient's threatened violent behavior…except where the patient has communicated to the psychotherapist a serious threat of physical violence against a reasonably identifiable victim or victims” (Cal. The patient's family sued the therapist, al-leging that he causally contributed to the accident through negligent diagnosis and treatment, as well as through negligent failure to pro-tect others either by warning the family of the patient's condition and STIV standard as an issue of legal theory and normative policy analysis, when it Whether a psychotherapist is liable under tort law for failure to institute involuntary commitment proceedings. “defective in itself” under any products liability theory. Legislatures along with ethicsand legal scholars have grappled with determining the right balance between promises of confidentiality to clients and the need to protect the jurisdiction’s citizens from harm. Then there is the issue of how much evidence is needed before a treatment approach is classified as harmful. Consequently, in Wisconsin, a psychotherapist may be held liable in negligence for failure to warn of the side effects of a medication if the side effects were such that a patient should have been cautioned against driving, because it was foreseeable *233 that an accident could result, causing harm to the patient or third parties if the patient drove while using the medication. Immunity for Failure to Predict or Warn In 1985 the Legislature enacted Section 43.92 of the Civil Code to provide immunity for psychotherapists for failure to predict and/or warn of a patient’s Examples include mandatory reporting requirements for t… against a psychotherapist for failure to protect a victim from a patient’s act of. Defendant asserts that introduction of evidence relating to such a duty, therefore, would be prejudicial and could confuse the trier of fact. J. A36005/03 - 3 - reconsideration, which the trial court considered and ultimately granted. ... Duty to Warn/Protect. CONCLUSION All licensing jurisdictions in the United States have laws that place limits on the confidentiality of information relevant to protecting some vulnerable individuals from harm (Werth, Welfel, & Benjamin, 2009). Explanations for intelligence failure generally include one or more of the following causal factors: organizational obstacles, psychological and analytical challenges, problems with warning information, and failures of political leadership. Although it agreed with the defendants’ evidence, the Tarasoff Court ultimately held that Poddar’s psychiatrists were liable for failure to warn (also referred to in this case as "failure to protect").