Tarasoff Duty

California’s Tarasoff duty applies when a patient expresses to a psychotherapist a threat of serious violence against a reasonably identifiable victim or victims. Most states have similar statutes.

Therapists in most states have either a duty to warn the potential victim of a threat, or a broader duty to protect that victim, which may include warning them, notifying law enforcement, communicating with other parties, or ensuring that the patient does not have the ability or means to carry out the threat. While the original Tarasoff decision resulted in a specific duty to warn, the current law in California specifies only a duty to protect.¹ Most other states have adopted similar statutes, though the details vary. If the criteria for a duty to warn or protect are met, the therapist can be found negligent if they do not take steps to do so.² In California, being subject to a “Tarasoff” results in a five-year firearm prohibition.³

Legal History

California’s duty to protect, or “Tarasoff,” statute is based on a case in which a student at the University of California (UC) Berkeley told his therapist he planned to kill a woman he had been dating, Tatiana Tarasoff, and then did so. Her parents sued the UC Regents and the therapist. In an unusual move, the case was heard twice by the California Supreme Court. The court’s opinions addressed the question of at what point a therapist’s duty to uphold a patient’s privacy is overridden by a duty to protect members of the public from danger.

The first opinion found that the therapist had a duty to warn the potential victim of such a threat.⁴ The case was heard a second time because of the concern that merely warning a potential victim might not be sufficient to protect them, and in some cases, might even worsen the danger. The ruling of the second case and clarification in Civil Code 43.92 resulted ultimately in a broader duty to protect the potential victim.^1,5-7 According to California’s Civil Code, the therapist is also expected to “make reasonable efforts to communicate the threat to the victim or victims and to a law enforcement entity.”¹

Though there is no federal duty to warn or protect, many states have adopted similar laws since the Tarasoff decisions. Some states have codified their mandatory duty in legislative statute while others have established it through case law.⁸ Of states that do not mandate, some instead permit disclosure, but a few provide no guidance on the matter. Generally, states or jurisdictions fall into one of these categories:^2,8,9

• Those that have statutorily mandated reporting laws.
• Those that impose a duty to warn under common law.
• Those that allow discretion under permissive duty to warn laws.
• Those that have no guidance regarding the Tarasoff warning.

The specifics of the duty and how it is triggered also vary by state, including:²

• Whether the duty is to warn or to protect
• Who is covered under the statute (psychotherapists, psychiatrists, physicians, etc.)
• How specific the threat needs to be (against a foreseeable victim, a reasonably identifiable victim, etc.)

What You Can Do

It’s important to know to what situations and clinician types these laws apply in your state. In California, the Tarasoff, or duty to protect, statute applies only to psychotherapists. Generally, “psychotherapists” refers to licensed mental health clinicians, including psychiatrists, psychologists, marriage and family therapists, social workers, and psychiatric nurses.¹⁰ However, in some states, this duty applies only to those holding a specific license type; in others, it applies more generally to all healthcare providers.²

While the duty to warn may be limited to communicating with the target of the threat, the broader duty to protect can be fulfilled in various ways. These may include warning the target, increasing the frequency of therapeutic visits, or hospitalizing the patient. Protecting may also involve communicating with other parties such as parents or school officials who could lessen that threat. Importantly, in states where either duty is mandatory, it overrides concerns about maintaining patient confidentiality.²

In California, patients who become the subject of a “Tarasoff” statute that is reported to law enforcement are prohibited by California law from purchasing or owning firearms for five years.³ While notifying the police may be an important step in protecting the potential victim, it is also the sole mechanism in this situation by which the patient’s name would be communicated to the California Department of Justice for a firearm prohibition.

If a therapist fails to take steps to warn or protect the potential victim from a patient who has made a threat against them, that therapist may be found negligent in a court of law.²

If a threat of violence is made that does not fall under the criteria laid out by duty to warn or protect statutes, clinicians may still be permitted to breach patient privacy in the interest of protecting a third party or the public. According to HIPAA, if a patient makes a “serious and imminent threat” of violence, the clinician is allowed to disclose protected health information (PHI) that (1) is necessary to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the health or safety of the patient or others and (2) is to a person(s) reasonably able to prevent or lessen the threat.¹¹ According to the US Department of Health and Human Services, “HIPAA expressly defers to the professional judgment of health professionals in making determinations about the nature and severity of the threat to health or safety posed by a patient.”¹²

However, unlike with California’s Tarasoff statute, the patient’s right to own a firearm would remain unchanged in this situation unless further action were taken. In such a situation, if there is a serious concern for firearm-related harm, an extreme risk protection order may be indicated.

Page last updated October 2025.

For more information, see these peer-reviewed articles.

Knoll, J. L., IV. (2019, September 27). Psychiatric Malpractice Grand Rounds: The Tarasoff Dilemma. Psychiatric Times.

Weinstock, R., Bonnici, D., Seroussi, A., et al. (2014). No Duty to Warn in California: Now Unambiguously Solely a Duty to Protect. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.

Weinstock, R., Vari, G., Leong, G. B., et al. (2006). Back to the Past in California: A Temporary Retreat to a Tarasoff Duty to Warn. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.

Borum, R., & Reddy, M. (2001). Assessing violence risk in Tarasoff situations: A fact-based model of inquiry. Behavioral Sciences & the Law.

VandeCreek, L., & Knapp, S. (2001). Practitioner’s resource series. Tarasoff and beyond: Legal and clinical considerations in the treatment of life-endangering patients (3rd ed.). Professional Resource Press/Professional Resource Exchange.

Appelbaum, P. S. (1985). Tarasoff and the clinician: Problems in fulfilling the duty to protect. American Journal of Psychiatry.