Opinion ID: 2275966
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: The Extent of the Burden to Defendant and the Consequences of Imposing a Duty with Resulting Liability for Breach

Text: In our opinion, imposing a duty on defendant in this case would be manifestly unjust. A frequent argument against imposing a Tarasoff -type duty has been that it would result in the overcommitment of patients as mental health professionals operated under the increased fear of potential liability. [18] If we imposed a duty in this case, in the absence of any evidence that the patient met the statutory requirements for commitment, then mental health professionals, faced with a choice between initiating certification proceedings and potential liability, certainly would feel pressure to choose the former option. This result would run contrary to the state's plan for treating patients in a manner that places the least restraint on their liberty. See G.L. 1956 § 40.1-8.5-1(a) (providing that [t]he state recognizes that children and adults with mental disability are entitled to appropriate, accessible, and adequate mental health services in the least restrictive environment which appropriately can serve their needs.) (emphasis added). Under the circumstances presented to us here, we are not willing to create this burden nor its likely outcome. 4