Opinion ID: 831674
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: a psychiatrist's commonlaw duty

Text: Before the enactment of MCL 330.1946, a psychiatrist's duty to warn or protect was governed entirely by the common law. Under the common law, as a general rule, there is no duty that obligates one person to aid or protect another. Williams v. Cunningham Drug Stores, Inc., 429 Mich. 495, 499, 418 N.W.2d 381 (1988). There is, however, an exception to this general rule when a special relationship exists between the plaintiff and the defendant. [3] Id. As this Court has stated: The rationale behind imposing a duty to protect in these special relationships is based on control. In each situation one person entrusts himself to the control and protection of another, with a consequent loss of control to protect himself. The duty to protect is imposed upon the person in control because he is best able to provide a place of safety. [ Id. ] Notably, Michigan caselaw considers the psychiatrist-patient relationship a special relationship that places on psychiatrists a duty of reasonable care to protect their patients. See Murdock v. Higgins, 454 Mich. 46, 55 n. 11, 559 N.W.2d 639 (1997), citing Williams, 429 Mich. at 499, 418 N.W.2d 381; Sierocki v. Hieber, 168 Mich. App. 429, 434, 425 N.W.2d 477 (1988), citing Duvall v. Goldin, 139 Mich.App. 342, 351, 362 N.W.2d 275 (1984). In the psychiatrist-patient context, the common-law duty not only requires a psychiatrist to protect his or her patients but also to warn third persons or protect them from harm by a patient under certain circumstances, regardless of the psychiatrist's relationship with that third person. The status of the duty owed to third persons in Michigan law, however, was unclear before MCL 330.1946 was adopted. The duty was first recognized in Michigan in a Court of Appeals case that adopted the reasoning of the seminal California Supreme Court case, Tarasoff v. Regents of the Univ. of California, 17 Cal.3d 425, 131 Cal.Rptr. 14, 551 P.2d 334 (1976). Davis v. Lhim, 124 Mich.App. 291, 298-301, 335 N.W.2d 481 (1983), rev'd on other grounds sub nom Canon v. Thumudo, 430 Mich. 326, 422 N.W.2d 688 (1988). In Tarasoff, the California Supreme Court held that psychiatrists have a duty to warn or protect a third person if the psychiatrists in fact determined that [the patient] presented a serious danger of violence to [the third person], or pursuant to the standards of their profession should have so determined, but nevertheless failed to exercise reasonable care to protect [the third person] from that danger. Tarasoff, 17 Cal.3d at 450, 131 Cal.Rptr. 14, 551 P.2d 334. Although this Court later reversed Davis, we specifically declined to address at that time whether a duty to warn should be imposed upon mental health professionals to protect third persons from dangers posed by patients. Canon, 430 Mich. at 355, 422 N.W.2d 688. [4] We did not foreclose the possibility of a common-law duty of mental health professionals to warn third persons or protect them from harm by their patients in Michigan. Indeed, we recognized that other jurisdictions had found a duty of psychiatrists to warn or protect third persons, the seminal case being Tarasoff .... Id. at 355 n. 18, 422 N.W.2d 688. Therefore, before the enactment of MCL 330.1946, psychiatrists in Michigan owed a common-law duty of reasonable care to their patients that arose out of the special relationship and, potentially, a duty to warn third persons of or protect them from potential dangers posed by their patients.