Opinion ID: 1177228
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: LaNita's Cause of Action

Text: (1a) The question posed by petitioners' first contention is whether the statute of limitations of section 340, or that of section 340.5 [2] governs a cause of action against a psychiatrist or psychologist for injuries suffered as a result of a therapist's negligence in failing to warn a potential victim of a threat to the victim made by the therapist's patient. (2) (See fn. 3.), (1b) To determine whether, as real parties in interest contend, section 340.5 governs, [3] we must decide whether a negligent failure to comply with the duty recognized in Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California (1976) 17 Cal.3d 425 [131 Cal. Rptr. 14, 551 P.2d 334, 83 A.L.R.3d 1166], constitutes professional negligence within the meaning of section 340.5. The original complaint in the underlying action was filed on November 12, 1980. In her third amended complaint against petitioners styled as one for Professional Malpractice, LaNita alleges as her cause of action that petitioners had rendered health care services to herself and to Stephen Wilson [4] in the form of psychotherapy, counseling and treatment; that prior to April 9, 1979, Stephen told petitioners of his intent to commit serious bodily injury upon her, and that from his communications to them petitioners, in the exercise of the professional skill, knowledge, and care possessed by members of their specialty, should have known that Stephen presented a serious danger of violence to her. She further alleges that petitioners owed her and other foreseeable victims a duty to diagnose Stephen's condition, to realize that he presented a serious threat of violence to her, and to recognize that the requirements of their profession required them to notify her of the danger. Allegedly this duty was breached when petitioners failed to warn her of the danger. Thereafter, on April 9, 1979, Stephen used a shotgun to inflict serious bodily injury on LaNita.