holding that the special relationship between a mental health professional and his patient may, in certain circumstances, give rise to an affirmative duty to protect and warn patient's intended victim
How later courts described this case
- holding that the special relationship between a mental health professional and his patient may, in certain circumstances, give rise to an affirmative duty to protect and warn patient's intended victim
- recognizing the difficulty “in predicting violent behavior, the importance of confidential communications between therapist and patient, and the policy that patients be placed in the least restrictive environment”
- finding “that the special relationship between a mental health professional and his patient may, in certain circumstances, give rise to an affirmative duty to warn for the benefit of an intended victim”
- holding that duty may lie "where the defendant stands in a special relationship to either the person whose conduct needs to be controlled or in a relationship to the foreseeable victim of that conduct"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FLAHERTY, Chief Justice,
concurring.
Mr. Justice Cappy, on behalf of the court, has authored an excellent opinion, and I join it. I write to express my concern that this is yet another extension of liability in an already too litigious society. Here, in my view, the extension is justified by the circumstances presented, but I would go no further. Yes, one can reason in so many instances that an extension of liability is merely a small step flowing naturally and logically from the existing case law. Yet each seemingly small step, over time, leads to an ever proliferating number of small steps that add up to huge leaps in terms of extensions of liability. At some point it must stop and I would draw the line in this area of the law with what is expressed by the court in this case — no further.