Tarasoff vs. Regents of the University of California

Choose one the Slobogin text, such as Tarasoff vs. Regents of the University of California (p. 214), or one of its many offspring (including Shaw v. Glickman), or other cases, including Jaffee v. Redmond, State v. Cole, or State v. Andring). Using the Questions and Comments at the end of each case, discuss some of the issues addressed by the appellate or Supreme court in that case. Please do not use more than 2-3 sentences to describe the case; everyone has read it. Rather, offer your opinion about the decision and its implications for practice, or find conflicting case law and compare the two cases.

Issue post is due by Day 4 (Thursday) and at least one substantive response post is due by Day 6 (Saturday).

Sample Answer

Analysis of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (1976) and Shaw v. Glickman (2020)

Case Summary (Brief)

Tarasoff v. Regents (1976)

Issue: Whether therapists must warn potential victims of a patient’s threats.
Holding: Duty to protect (not just warn) if the victim is identifiable.

Shaw v. Glickman (2020)

Issue: Whether a school counselor’s failure to report a student’s threat to a teacher was negligent.
Holding: No duty—only therapists owe Tarasoff-type duties.

Court’s Key Issues & My Opinion

Tarasoff’s Implications:

Pro: Prevents violence by forcing therapists to act (e.g., hospitalize or warn).
Con: Privacy concerns—therapists may over-report to avoid liability.