Tasoff Case Summary

Reasonably foreseeable victims were brought to the forefront by cases such as Tarasoff v. the Regents of the University of California and subsequent duty to warn cases. Foreseeable means that a “reasonable anticipation of the possible results of an action” exists (Foreseeability. (n.d.)).
The Tarasoff decision defined the first two categories of reasonably foreseeable victims, a person directly named by the client as being the target, and a person that a psychologist deems identifiable by using a moment of reflection. However, since Tarasoff, other cases have helped to further shape the definition of a reasonably foreseeable victim. 1. Hedlund v. Superior Court of Orange County. Defined a reasonably foreseeable victim to include someone with a close, personal relationship with the victim (Mottarella, n.d.). In this case an estranged girlfriend was not warned of her ex’s intent to harm her. In the ensuing violent incident, not only was the victim injured, but her son was also injured through traumatization by witnessing the incident. The court found that a child was indeed a reasonably foreseeable victim due to the fact
Schlegel v New Milford Hospital. Extended the definition of a reasonably foreseeable victim to include an entire class of people, in this case, caregivers. J.J Schlegel had a history of violence including violence towards caregivers. On the visit to the hospital in question, Schlegel had attacked the ambulance staff, spit on hospital personnel and attempted to bite the attending physician. He was giving a dose of psychological medication and released to the custody of his mother with no further treatment. The hospital failed to warn the mother of her son’s violence towards caregivers, and within 24 hours Schlegel had killed his caregiver, in this case, his own mother. The courts found that there any caregiver caring for Schlegel should have been warned based on his history of violence versus the specific class of people,