Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California
1. Assertion made by the plaintiff.
Tatiana Tarasoff’s parents (Plaintiffs) filed a suit against the Board of Regents and the employees at the University for failing to notify the intended victim. Tatiana’s parents asserted that the four psychiatrists at University of California, Cowell Memorial Hospital had a duty to warn Tatiana and her parents of the threats made by Poddar.
2. Rule of the Law on which the plaintiff bases the case.
The rule of the law is that the defendant, Moore owes a duty to protect all persons in the Tatiana Tarasoff case, who are endangered by Poddar’s conduct, with respect to all risks that make the conduct unreasonably dangerous.
3. Facts of the case (be very specific).
In1969, Poddar murdered Tatiana Tarasoff. The plaintiffs in the case are Tatiana’s parents, who argued that
…show more content…
Assertion made by the plaintiff
Mr. Phillip Jablonski murdered Melinda Kimball, and Meghan Jablonski filed a suit against him for the death of her mother.
2. Rule of the Law on which the plaintiff bases the case.
The rule of the law is that the intended victim, Melinda Kimball’s knowledge does not alleviate the therapist’s duty to protect, and commit the dangerous individual, Mr. Phillip Jablonski. Meghan reported that the psychiatrists at the hospital committed malpractice, which resulted in her mother's death.
3. Facts of the case (be very specific).
Mr. Phillip Jablonski was dating Ms. Kimball but had threatened to kill her. Mr. Jablonski completed a psychiatric evaluation which concluded that there was no necessity for involuntary commitment or hospitalization. After the hospital released him Ms. Kimball went with Phillip Jablonski to the hospital stating her concern for her safety. The doctor told Ms. Kimball to not go near him due to potential violence. He was then again released from the hospital. Soon after his release from the hospital, he killed Ms. Kimball.
4. Issue or question to be answered by the