Talk:Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California

message: The link  states that the Tarasoff verdict confirmed a duty to protect, not necessarily to warn. Should that be modified in the text? Wedgeoli 04:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There were two cases ... the 1974 case, referred to as Tarasoff I ...and the 1976 case, referred to as Tarasoff II.  The first case, Tarasoff I, imposed a "duty to warn".  For a number of reasons, this caused great uproar within the mental health profession.  The (California) Supreme Court revisited the case a year-and-a-half later.  They modified the first case, replacing a "duty to warn" with a "duty to protect".  This distinction between the first and second case was the whole point of revisiting the first case and "overriding it" with the second case.  The judges wanted to get rid of the duty to "warn" and replace it by imposing the "broader" (i.e., offering more discretion on the therapist's part) duty to "protect" (the public).  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duty to protect or duty to warn? 

message: The page talks about Prosenjit Poddar's relationship with "Tatiana", then he kills "Tarasoff". From this I would assume that Tatiana and Tarasoff are the same person. However, there is no indication in the article to support this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.36.186.2 (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The woman's full name is Tatiana Tarasoff, referenced at the start of the article. It is simply switching between first and last name reference for some reason. Tyciol (talk) 11:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Given that the article consistently refers to Poddar by his last name, it should also consistently refer to Tarasoff by hers. --Shadow (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have not read the entire article, word-for-word.  The name "Tarasoff" may refer to the murder victim (Tatiana Tarasoff) ... but it may also refer to the plaintiffs in the lawsuit (i.e., Tatiana Tarasoff's parents).  I am not sure without reading the full article.  Thus, there may be a valid reason for the article's switching between first and last name references.  And, it's possible that editors of the article were trying to clear up ambiguity between referring to "Tarasoff", the murder victim ... and "Tarasoff", the lawsuit plaintiffs.  Which are two "separate" (different) Tarasoffs.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is Tarasoff? 

message: From this sentence is not clear when Poddar moved in with Tatiana's brother. "In October, after Tarasoff had returned, Poddar stopped seeing his psychologist. Neither Tarasoff nor her parents received any warning of the threat. Poddar then befriended Tarasoff's brother, even moving in with him. Several months later, on October 27, 1969, Poddar carried out the plan he had confided to his psychologist, stabbing and killing Tarasoff. "
Has someone more precise infos? --Dia^ (talk) 10:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it's unclear, as written.  Not necessarily "inconsistent" ... but, yes, it should be clarified.     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  The opinion decided in the lawsuit states: Plaintiffs' second cause of action, entitled "Failure to Warn On a Dangerous Patient," incorporates the allegations of the first cause of action, but adds the assertion that defendants negligently permitted Poddar to be released from police custody without "notifying the parents of Tatiana Tarasoff that their daughter was in grave danger from Posenjit Poddar." Poddar persuaded Tatiana's brother to share an apartment with him near Tatiana's residence; shortly after her return from Brazil, Poddar went to her residence and killed her.  Not exactly precise or helpful.  But, it offers a little more detail.     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency