Tarasoff V. Board Of Regents Case Summary

In the Tarasoff v. Board of Regents Case, the family of Tatiana Tarasoff prosecuted the UC Berkeley’s Board of Regents. This was because, Prosenjit Poddar, who murdered Tatiana Tarasoff, had earlier confided in his therapist at the UC Berkeley Cowell Memorial Hospital of his plans to murder her, and the Tarasoff family believed it was the Hospital’s responsibility to do everything they could to keep Tarasoff from harm, which they failed to do. The ruling of the case was that it was, in fact, the Hospital’s responsibility to properly protect Tarasoff. Specifically, the ruling stated that if someone informs you that they plan to bring bodily harm to another identifiable individual, and you have a special relationship with that person such as therapist to patient or parent to child, you are required to take necessary steps to protect the potential victim whether it be reporting the incident to the police or warning the potential victim.
In scenario number four of the Tarasoff scenarios, a psychologist is seeing woman …show more content…
The phrase “get him first” is vague, but our group believes it implies bodily harm seeing as she is scared he will harm her, “getting him first” would imply her harming him before he can hurt her. For these reasons we believe it is the responsibility of the psychologist to report her intentions to the police so they can take necessary steps to protect the potential victim. However, we don’t believe it’s the psychologist’s responsibility to warn the ex-boyfriend because the psychologist likely does not know the his name or how to contact him, and if they we were to contact him, it could potentially anger him and put the woman at risk. Therefore, we believe by contacting the police and making sure the police take action, the psychologist will have fulfilled his or her Tarasoff

Show More

Related Documents: Tarasoff V. Board Of Regents Case Summary

Essay on Bus205 Study Guide