@article{ref1,
title="Misapplication of the Tarasoff duty to driving cases: a call for a reframing of theory",
journal="Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law",
year="1993",
author="Pettis, R. W. and Gutheil, T. G.",
volume="21",
number="3",
pages="263-275",
abstract="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 &quot;driving cases&quot;--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.<p /> <p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="0091-634X",
doi="",
url="http://dx.doi.org/"
}