Opinion ID: 1175611
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: common law analysis

Text: Entirely apart from the statutory provisions, the same result must be reached upon considering both general tort principles and the public policies favoring effective treatment, reduction of violence, and justified commitment. Generally, a person owes no duty to control the conduct of another. ( Richards v. Stanley (1954) 43 Cal.2d 60, 65 [271 P.2d 23]; Wright v. Arcade School Dist. (1964) 230 Cal. App.2d 272, 277 [40 Cal. Rptr. 812]; Rest.2d Torts (1965) § 315.) Exceptions are recognized only in limited situations where (1) a special relationship exists between the defendant and injured party, or (2) a special relationship exists between defendant and the active wrongdoer, imposing a duty on defendant to control the wrongdoer's conduct. The majority does not contend the first exception is appropriate to this case. Policy generally determines duty. ( Dillon v. Legg (1968) 68 Cal.2d 728, 734 [69 Cal. Rptr. 72, 441 P.2d 912, 29 A.L.R.3d 1316].) Principal policy considerations include foreseeability of harm, certainty of the plaintiff's injury, proximity of the defendant's conduct to the plaintiff's injury, moral blame attributable to defendant's conduct, prevention of future harm, burden on the defendant, and consequences to the community. ( Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108, 113 [70 Cal. Rptr. 97, 443 P.2d 561, 32 A.L.R.3d 496].) Overwhelming policy considerations weigh against imposing a duty on psychotherapists to warn a potential victim against harm. While offering virtually no benefit to society, such a duty will frustrate psychiatric treatment, invade fundamental patient rights and increase violence. The importance of psychiatric treatment and its need for confidentiality have been recognized by this court. ( In re Lifschutz (1970) 2 Cal.3d 415, 421-422 [85 Cal. Rptr. 829, 467 P.2d 557, 44 A.L.R.3d 1].) It is clearly recognized that the very practice of psychiatry vitally depends upon the reputation in the community that the psychiatrist will not tell. (Slovenko, Psychiatry and a Second Look at the Medical Privilege (1960) 6 Wayne L.Rev. 175, 188.) Assurance of confidentiality is important for three reasons.