Court Opinion

ID: 9779432
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:50:32.903163+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:26.382595
License: Public Domain

HOWERTON, Chief Judge,
concurring.
I agree that the summary judgment was premature. A cause of action was presented, and several factual issues remain to be decided.
The majority opinion generally adopts Restatement (2d) of Torts Section 315 and its application in Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425, 131 Cal.Rptr. 14, 551 P.2d 334 (1976). I agree that such law should be applicable in Kentucky. Therefore, if a psychiatrist or psychologist knows that a patient is dangerous and that the patient poses a real risk of harm to a known, or reasonably identifiable, person, the therapist has a duty to prevent the harm by controlling the patient or by warning the intended victim.
We are confronted with several questions. What did Dr. Sinha or Mr. Rose actually know? Was it reasonable for either party to believe that Mr. Allen was dangerous? Was Mr. Allen dangerous when he was released from the medical center? Did either therapist know the identity of the intended victim? Could either party reasonably have discovered Evans identity? These and similar questions seem to be relevant, factual issues.
There are also relevant questions concerning Evans and his knowledge of the situation. As was written in Matter of the Estate of Votteler, 327 N.W.2d 759, 762 (Iowa 1982), “[t]he Tarasoff duty is not open ended. It also supports a conclusion that the duty should not be imposed when the foreseeable victim knows of the danger.” The evidence reveals that Allen directly threatened Evans, although Allen’s children later attempted to reassure Evans that Allen was not dangerous. Did Evans have reason to take Allen’s threat seriously?
The summary judgment must be reversed, and all issues in this case must be considered on remand.