摘要：This Comment discusses the Tarasoff decisions and subsequent cases defining the scope of the psychotherapists' duty to protect persons other than their patients. It examines the rationale behind A.B. 2900, and assesses the bill's effect upon the Tarasoff-related objections it addresses. In spite of the Governor's veto of A.B. 2900, there is a need for statutory guidelines to clearly and equitably define the scope of the psychotherapists' duty to protect. This Comment proposes a model statute that attempts to strike a favorable balance among the complex, overlapping interests of psychotherapists, patients, and the public.
关键词：failure to warn law; hedlund v. superior court; jablonski v. united states; prediction of criminal behavior; tarasoff v. regents of the university of california; therapist-patient relations
