Misapplication of the Tarasoff duty to driving cases: a call for a reframing of theory.
R. W. Pettis and T. G. Gutheil,
Bull. Amer. Acad. Psychiatry & the Law
21(3): 263-75, 1993.
In the years since the original Tarasoff cases created a new duty for psychotherapists toward third
parties harmed by patients' violence, a series of cases nationwide--so called "driving cases"--have
applied Tarasoff-like reasoning to situations where a patient injured others while driving a car. Our
thesis in this paper is that such application is inappropriate since it represents an unjustified and
largely unexamined assumption that driving injury is an expression of the mental-illness-derived
intended violence that justifies the Tarasoff duty and its inevitable associated breach of
confidentiality. We suggest to the contrary that driving cases almost invariably result from a patient's
negligent driving rather than intentional violence stemming from mental illness; that clinicians in
most instances have almost no capacity, training, or clinical bases on which to predict a patient's
future negligence, violence aside; and that the theory of driving cases should be revised. [References: