Duty to warn
The first was Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (1976), where a therapist failed to inform a young woman and her parents of specific death threats made by a client.
A lawsuit by a party injured by a product, where the manufacturer failed to properly warn, is usually brought as a "negligence" action, but it could be filed as a "strict liability" claim or as a "breach of warranty of merchantability" case.
[3] Following the recall, the Federal Aviation Administration prohibited people from turning Galaxy Note 7 on, packing it in the checked luggage, and charging it while on the plane.
"[13] In situations when there is cause for serious concern about a client harming someone, the clinician must breach confidentiality to warn the identified victim/third party about imminent danger.
[15][page needed][16] The court held that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by a patient.
The original 1974 decision mandated warning the threatened individual, but a 1976 rehearing of the case by the California Supreme Court called for a "duty to protect" the intended victim.
Limitations to confidentiality are a critical concern for clinicians, because a relationship of trust between the therapist and client is the prerequisite context for therapeutic growth.
She filed an action against Internet Brands alleging liability for negligence under California law based on that failure to warn.
In 2016, he was convicted of multiple offenses including robbery, three counts of sexual assault with a weapon, and choking Doe until she passed out.
In January 2016, Doe commenced a lawsuit against the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, alleging police failed to properly warn the public that a predator was stalking young women.
[22] A result of these claims was the passing of the Clery Act which requires colleges and universities in the United States to publish campus crime reports.
[24][25] US federal officials cited the university for "an egregious violation" for failing to notify the public of the murder of Laura Dickinson in her residence hall room.
[28] In August 2021, a U.S. appeals court ruled that U.S. intelligence agencies were not required to disclose whether they had information about threats to Khashoggi's life before his assassination.
