In which case did the court expand the duty to warn about potential danger based on family member communication?

The correct answer is linked to the case of Tarasoff v. Board of Regents of the University of California, which is a landmark decision that established the principle of the duty to warn. In this case, the court ruled that mental health professionals have a responsibility to warn individuals who may be in danger due to a patient's threats of violence. Specifically, the duty to warn was expanded to include communication about potential threats made by a patient to family members or others, emphasizing the importance of safety and the obligation of professionals to take reasonable steps to protect potential victims.

This case is pivotal because it highlights the balance between client confidentiality and the need to protect third parties from foreseeable harm. By expanding the duty to include warnings based on family member communication, the court recognized the significant role that family relationships can play in assessing potential risks and ensuring that proper precautions are taken. The outcome has influenced various practices in mental health and legal contexts, underscoring the ethical obligations of professionals in similar situations.