Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California
Opinion of the court

Justice Mosk wrote a partial dissent,: 451 arguing that (1) the rule in future cases should be one of the actual subjective prediction of violence on the part of the psychiatrist, which occurred in this case, not one based on objective professional standards, because predictions are inherently unreliable; and (2) the psychiatrists notified the police, who were presumably in a better position to protect Tarasoff than she would be to protect herself.
detectable_content:number_placeholders[8]