Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California
Supreme Court of California
551 P.2d 334, 17 Cal.3d 425 (1976)
- Written by Megan Petersen, JD
Facts
Tatiana Tarasoff was a student at the University of California, Berkeley, under the leadership of the Regents of University of California (Regents) (defendant). She and her fellow student, Prosenjit Poddar, briefly shared a romantic interaction on New Year’s Eve 1968. After that, Tarasoff was unresponsive to Poddar’s advances and dated other men. This all aggravated Poddar, and he went to see Dr. Lawrence Moore, a psychologist employed at the university’s medical center. Poddar confessed to Moore that he intended to kill Tatiana. Moore diagnosed Poddar as suffering from a mental disorder and recommended he be involuntarily committed for a short time. Poddar was released, however, after he appeared rational. Moore’s boss allegedly told him not to have any further involvement with the case. At no point did anyone associated with the Regents warn Tatiana or her parents of possible danger. On October 27, 1969, Poddar killed Tatiana in her home. Tatiana’s parents, the Tarasoffs (plaintiffs) brought suit against the Regents alleging they were negligence in failing to warn them of the danger to Tatiana. The trial court held for the Regents, and the Tarasoffs appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Tobriner, J.)
Concurrence (Mosk, J.)
Dissent (Clark, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 777,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
