Duty to warn
Encyclopedia
A duty to warn is a concept that arises in the law
of torts in a number of circumstances, indicating that a party
will be held liable for injuries caused to another, where the party had the opportunity to warn the other of a hazard and failed to do so.
of deadly conditions known to the property owner, but that would be hidden from the trespasser. The property owner must warn licensees of all known hazards (whether deadly or not), and must warn invitees of all dangers that the property owner can discover through a reasonable inspection of the property.
The duty to warn also arises in products liability cases, where manufacturers are held strictly liable for injuries caused by hazards inherent in the use of their products.
, duty to warn applies to cases where the client/patient is dangerous to others and has identified targeted individual(s). In these situations, the clinician must breach confidentiality
to warn the identified victim/third party about imminent danger. Additionally, the clinician can warn the local police authorities and inform them about what may eventually happen. Duty to warn originated from two rulings (1974 and 1976) of the California Supreme Court in the case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California
. The legal case was brought by the Tarasoff family after their daughter, Tatiana Tarasoff, was murdered by Prosenjit Poddar who was under psychological care in the university counseling center. Poddar made it known to his psychologists that he wanted to kill Tarasoff and his psychologists informed police. Upon investigation, he was released because his mental state seemed to have stabilized. Although the psychologists and police knew about his urges ahead of time, no one warned Tatiana Tarasoff, which could have prevented her death. Jablonski by Pahls v. United States
extended this responsibility to include the review of previous records, which may contain history of previous violent behavior, a predictor of potential for future violence.
The application of duty-to-warn laws places clinicians in the uneasy situation of breaching another law, that of confidentiality. However, if the clinician has reasonable suspicion of what may happen, the clinician is protected from prosecution.
Law
Law is a system of rules and guidelines which are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior, wherever possible. It shapes politics, economics and society in numerous ways and serves as a social mediator of relations between people. Contract law regulates everything from buying a bus...
of torts in a number of circumstances, indicating that a party
Party (law)
A party is a person or group of persons that compose a single entity which can be identified as one for the purposes of the law. Parties include: plaintiff , defendant , petitioner , respondent , cross-complainant A party is a person or group of persons that compose a single entity which can be...
will be held liable for injuries caused to another, where the party had the opportunity to warn the other of a hazard and failed to do so.
Property ownership
Most notably, a property owner has a duty to warn persons on the property of various hazards, depending on the status of the person on the property. For example, the property owner must warn an anticipated or discovered trespasserTrespasser
In the law of tort, property, and criminal law a trespasser is a person who commits the act of trespassing on a property, that is, without the permission of the owner. Being present on land as a trespasser thereto creates liability in the trespasser, so long as the trespass is intentional...
of deadly conditions known to the property owner, but that would be hidden from the trespasser. The property owner must warn licensees of all known hazards (whether deadly or not), and must warn invitees of all dangers that the property owner can discover through a reasonable inspection of the property.
The duty to warn also arises in products liability cases, where manufacturers are held strictly liable for injuries caused by hazards inherent in the use of their products.
Clinical psychology
In clinical psychological practice in the United StatesUnited States
The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district...
, duty to warn applies to cases where the client/patient is dangerous to others and has identified targeted individual(s). In these situations, the clinician must breach confidentiality
Confidentiality
Confidentiality is an ethical principle associated with several professions . In ethics, and in law and alternative forms of legal resolution such as mediation, some types of communication between a person and one of these professionals are "privileged" and may not be discussed or divulged to...
to warn the identified victim/third party about imminent danger. Additionally, the clinician can warn the local police authorities and inform them about what may eventually happen. Duty to warn originated from two rulings (1974 and 1976) of the California Supreme Court in the case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California
Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California
Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of California held that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by a patient...
. The legal case was brought by the Tarasoff family after their daughter, Tatiana Tarasoff, was murdered by Prosenjit Poddar who was under psychological care in the university counseling center. Poddar made it known to his psychologists that he wanted to kill Tarasoff and his psychologists informed police. Upon investigation, he was released because his mental state seemed to have stabilized. Although the psychologists and police knew about his urges ahead of time, no one warned Tatiana Tarasoff, which could have prevented her death. Jablonski by Pahls v. United States
Jablonski by Pahls v. United States
Jablonski by Pahls v. United States, 712 F.2d 391 is a landmark case in which the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that a mental health professional's duty to predict dangerousness includes consulting a patient's prior records, and that their duty to protect includes the involuntary...
extended this responsibility to include the review of previous records, which may contain history of previous violent behavior, a predictor of potential for future violence.
The application of duty-to-warn laws places clinicians in the uneasy situation of breaching another law, that of confidentiality. However, if the clinician has reasonable suspicion of what may happen, the clinician is protected from prosecution.