[1] If a client makes statements that suggest suicidal or homicidal ideation, the clinician has the responsibility to take steps to warn potential victims, and if necessary, initiate involuntary commitment.
[3] The duty to protect was established by Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California,[4][page needed] which has been widely adopted by other states.
[citation needed] Ewing v. Goldstein extended the duty to protect to include acting upon the statements of third parties that indicate possible threat, and determined that it was not sufficiently discharged by initiating involuntary commitment; warning identifiable victims is also necessary.
The case involved a social worker, Claire Selwood, who was seriously injured after being assaulted by an individual who was being treated by a mental health professionals employed by Durham City Council.
In her ruling, Dame Janet Smith said that there was a distinction between a duty to someone working closely with a defendant, as in this case, and the public at large.