Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2023 Jul;68(4):1206-1217.
doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.15302. Epub 2023 Jun 7.

Tarasoff in Missouri: The jurisprudence of a mental health provider's duty to warn and protect non-patients of potential risks from patients

Nathalie Boulos  1 , Divya Mallela  2 , Alan Felthous  1
Affiliations
Review

Tarasoff in Missouri: The jurisprudence of a mental health provider's duty to warn and protect non-patients of potential risks from patients

Nathalie Boulos et al. J Forensic Sci. 2023 Jul.

Abstract

In 1976, the Supreme Court of California issued its well-known Tarasoff Principle. From this principle, other courts found a duty to warn, and some found more than just a duty to warn, a duty to protect. As courts in other states adopted a version of the Tarasoff Principle, they issued a wide variety of third-party liability rules. In light of the dynamic, everchanging Tarasoff jurisprudence in the United States and recent relevant appellate court opinion in Missouri, a timely updated summary and update of Tarasoff-related jurisprudence in Missouri is warranted. In the present analysis, we compiled the four appellate court decisions that pertained to the questions of Tarasoff-like third-party liability in the State of Missouri: Sherrill v. Wilson (1983), Matt v. Burrell (1995), Bradley v. Ray (1995), and Virgin v. Hopewell (2001). We reviewed all legal measures for clinicians to protect nonpatients in Missouri, not just those that relate to protecting nonpatients from violence as in a Tarasof-like scenario. Thus, this paper concisely provides a compendium of such options and allows for a meaningful comparison of which legal, protective measures are mandatory and which are permissive, thereby evoking the question of whether measures of protecting nonpatients from a patient's violent acts ought to be mandatory duties or permissive application of professional judgment.

Keywords: Missouri; Tarasoff; duty to protect; duty to report; duty to warn; mental health; third party.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

REFERENCES

    1. Felthous AR. Negligence without malpractice. Broadening liability for psychiatrists who release dangerous mental patients. Med Law. 1985;4(5):453-62.
    1. Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (1976) 17 Cal. 3d 425 (Supreme Court of California).
    1. Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (1976) 17 Cal. 3d at 431 (Supreme Court of California).
    1. Felthous AR, Kachigian C. The fin de millénaire duty to warn or protect. J Forensic Sci. 2001;46(5):1103-12. https://doi.org/10.1520/JFS15106J
    1. Fleming JG, Maximov B. The patient or his victim: the therapist's dilemma. Calif Law rev. 1974;62(3):1025-68. https://doi.org/10.2307/3479754