Which case extends the duty to warn in California to potential bystanders?

The case that extends the duty to warn in California to potential bystanders is Tarasoff v. University of California Board of Regents. This landmark ruling established the principle that mental health professionals have an obligation to warn individuals who are identifiable and at risk of being harmed by a patient. In the Tarasoff case, the court determined that when a therapist is aware of a specific threat to a person, they must take reasonable steps to prevent harm, which could include notifying the potential victim or even law enforcement.

This decision is foundational in ethical professional practice as it underscores the balance between patient confidentiality and the need to protect innocent third parties from foreseeable harm. The principle set forth in Tarasoff has significantly influenced mental health practices and legal obligations across the country, establishing a clear framework for when and how mental health professionals should act on threats made by their clients.

Understanding the implications of this case is crucial for professionals in the field, ensuring they uphold their ethical responsibilities while also navigating the rights of their clients.