Opinion ID: 2569087
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the therapist's statutory duty to warn or protect

Text: ¶ 9 Our objective in interpreting a statute is to effectuate legislative intent, and that intent is most readily ascertainable by looking to the plain language of the statute. [6] In addition, we construe a statute so `as to render all parts thereof relevant and meaningful, and interpretations are to be avoided which render some part of a provision nonsensical or absurd.' [7] ¶ 10 In plain language, Utah Code section 78-14a-102(1) clearly delineates when a therapist has a duty to warn a potential victim about a patient's threat: A therapist has no duty to warn or take precautions to provide protection from any violent behavior of his client or patient, except when that client or patient communicated to the therapist an actual threat of physical violence against a clearly identified or reasonably identifiable victim. That duty shall be discharged if the therapist makes reasonable efforts to communicate the threat to the victim, and notifies a law enforcement officer or agency of the threat. [8] The first clause of the first sentence of this section broadly precludes any duty on the part of a therapist to warn or take precautions to provide protection. The second clause of that sentence establishes an exception to this preclusion, imposing a duty on the therapist when a client or patient communicated to the therapist an actual threat of physical violence against a clearly identified or reasonably identifiable victim. [9] The sentence that follows provides that a duty arising by virtue of the exception is discharged if the therapist makes reasonable efforts to communicate the threat to the victim, and notifies a law enforcement officer or agency of the threat. [10] ¶ 11 The Clinic argues that a duty did arise by virtue of the exception because the client made a threat of physical violence against a clearly identified individual  himself  when he threatened suicide. Because it was unnecessary to inform the client of his threat against himself, the Clinic argues, Ms. Harris fully discharged her obligation as specified in the statute by informing law enforcement. We need not reach the question of whether the statute contemplates a client threatening suicide. The question before this court is not whether the therapist owed and discharged a duty to the client but whether the therapist owed and discharged a duty to Officer Robinson. ¶ 12 Whatever duty the statute may have created with respect to the client as a threatened victim of his own suicide, it created no duty with respect to the protection of Officer Robinson. There is no suggestion that there was any actual threat of physical violence to Officer Robinson communicated to Ms. Harris. Therefore, he is not a clearly identified or reasonably identifiable victim to which a duty might have arisen by virtue of the exception. Because the exception does not apply, the broad preclusion of duty makes clear that no duty to warn or protect arose as to Officer Robinson. We hold that, under a plain-meaning reading of the statute, the exception does not apply, and Ms. Harris was under no duty to warn or protect Officer Robinson.