Connection lost
Server error
Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A university psychologist’s patient killed a woman after revealing his intent to do so. The court found that when a therapist determines a patient poses a serious danger to another, the therapist has an affirmative duty to use reasonable care to protect the foreseeable, identifiable victim.
Legal Significance: This landmark case established a psychotherapist’s affirmative “duty to protect” an identifiable third party from a patient’s foreseeable violence, creating a major exception to the general rule of no duty to control another’s conduct and impacting therapist-patient confidentiality.
Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Prosenjit Poddar, a patient receiving psychotherapy at a University of California hospital, informed his psychologist, Dr. Lawrence Moore, of his intention to kill Tatiana Tarasoff. Dr. Moore concluded Poddar was dangerous and requested campus police to detain him for commitment. The police briefly detained Poddar but released him when he appeared rational and promised to avoid Tarasoff. Dr. Moore’s supervisor, Dr. Harvey Powelson, then directed that no further action be taken to confine Poddar and ordered the destruction of Moore’s records related to the matter. No warning was given to Tarasoff or her family about the specific threat. Two months later, Poddar killed Tarasoff. Tarasoff’s parents filed a wrongful death suit against the university’s regents, the therapists, and the police, alleging negligence for failing to confine Poddar and, crucially, for failing to warn Tarasoff of the danger she was in. The trial court dismissed the complaint, finding the defendants owed no duty of care to Tarasoff.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a psychotherapist owe a duty of reasonable care to protect a foreseeable third-party victim from a patient whom the therapist determines, or should determine, presents a serious danger of violence?
Yes. The court reversed the dismissal of the claims against the therapists, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaec
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a psychotherapist owe a duty of reasonable care to protect a foreseeable third-party victim from a patient whom the therapist determines, or should determine, presents a serious danger of violence?
Conclusion
Tarasoff established the landmark "duty to protect," imposing on psychotherapists an affirmative Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu f
Legal Rule
When a therapist determines, or pursuant to the standards of the profession Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur
Legal Analysis
The California Supreme Court's analysis fundamentally altered traditional tort principles of duty. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A psychotherapist has a duty to protect a third party when