19.8 Reporting of Danger to Others

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

19.8 Reporting of Danger to Others. Ever since the California Supreme Court established the duty of mental health professionals to warn third parties about the dangers posed by their patients in Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California,³³ there has been considerable discussion outlining the shape and limits of this duty. Arizona courts have generally adopted the Tarasoff duty to warn others of specific dangers posed by patients.³⁴ The Legislature also has recognized the duty via licensing statutes that the failure of a mental health professional to warn of danger posed by a patient to be unprofessional conduct.³⁵

A mental health provider has a duty to warn when he or she determines, or should have determined under applicable professional standards, that a patient poses a serious danger of violence.³⁶ The threat must be reasonably foreseeable.³⁷ Similarly, the connection between the provider’s conduct or omission and the threat cannot be remote.³⁸ The determination of whether a threat exists and the reasonableness of the provider’s conduct must be based upon the standard of care within the provider’s profession.³⁹ The duty to warn extends to persons who may be in the area where the patient’s violent conduct would reasonably be expected to occur.⁴⁰

It is less clear, however, what action is sufficient to discharge the duty to warn. The Arizona Legislature attempted⁴¹ to specify a safe harbor by limiting cause of action for failure to warn to circumstances...