| Abstract: | The duty of therapists to protect third parties has gained national attention following the analyses of the California Supreme Court in Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California in 1974 and in 1976. The assassination attempt by John Hinckley, Jr., has spawned yet another “duty to protect” case (Hopper v. Brady). Utilizing the issues involved in Hopper, this paper discusses the psychotherapists' duty to protect from harm the patients' potential victims. Following an analysis of Hopper, Tarasoff is extensively reviewed. The evolution of Tarasoff within California and other jurisdictions is traced. Finally, an appraisal of the current status of the therapists' duty to protect as applied to Hopper and future cases is presented. |
