Weinstock Robert, Bonnici Daniel, Seroussi Ariel, Leong Gregory B
1823 Sawtelle Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90025.
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2014;42(1):101-8.
In 2013, legislation went into effect clarifying that the Tarasoff duty in California is now unambiguously solely a duty to protect. Warning the potential victim and the police is not a requirement, but a clinician can obtain immunity from liability by using this safe harbor. In situations in which a therapist believes warning might exacerbate the patient's risk, however, alternative protective actions can satisfy the duty to protect. For a clinician to be found liable, those alternative actions would have to be proven negligent. This flexibility can sometimes be crucial in protecting potential victims and thereby, indirectly, patients from the consequences of dangerous action. Explaining the reasoning for the action chosen should obviate any significant liability risk of doing the right thing, even without immunity. Legislation was enacted in 2007 as an attempt to clarify the requirement, but the revised immunity statute at the time retained the phrase 'duty to warn and protect', which perpetuated the now-eliminated confusion. Correctly understanding the California law is important to avoid having the restored flexibility eroded again by belief in a nonexistent duty to warn. The Tarasoff duty originated in California, but since many other states later established similar duties, the developments in California may have national implications.
2013年，一项立法开始生效，明确加利福尼亚州的塔索夫义务现在明确仅为保护义务。警告潜在受害者和警方并非一项要求，但临床医生可通过利用这一安全港获得责任豁免。然而，在治疗师认为警告可能会加剧患者风险的情况下，采取其他保护行动也可履行保护义务。要认定临床医生有责任，必须证明这些替代行动存在疏忽。这种灵活性有时对于保护潜在受害者，进而间接保护患者免受危险行为后果的影响至关重要。解释所采取行动的理由应能消除采取正确行动所带来的任何重大责任风险，即使没有豁免权。2007年颁布了一项立法，试图澄清这一要求，但当时修订的豁免法规保留了“警告和保护义务”这一表述，这使得现已消除的混淆持续存在。正确理解加利福尼亚州的法律对于避免因相信不存在的警告义务而再次侵蚀恢复的灵活性很重要。塔索夫义务起源于加利福尼亚州，但由于许多其他州后来也确立了类似义务，加利福尼亚州的这些发展可能具有全国性影响。
