Ewing v. Goldstein

Ewing v. Goldstein is a landmark court case that extended California mental health professional's duty to protect identifiable victims of potentially violent persons, as established by Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, to include acting upon communications from third parties that indicate a possible threat. [cite web
url=http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/34/4/523?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&minscore=5000&resourcetype=HWCIT
publisher=Journal of the American Academy for Psychiatry and the Law
accessdate=2008-01-08
title=Back to the Past in California: A Temporary Retreat to a Tarasoff Duty to Warn]

Facts

Former police officer Gene Colello received treatment from David Goldstein, PhD, after breaking up with his ex-girlfriend, who had become involved with Keith Ewing. During the course of treatment, Colello told his father that he was considering harming Ewing, which the father relayed to Goldstein. Goldstein encouraged voluntary hospitalization, but did not warn Ewing or law enforcement officials of Colello's hostile intentions towards him. When Colello was released, he murdered Ewing and then committed suicide.

Ruling

The court ruled that Goldstein was negligent and found him guilty of wrongful death. They determined that the duty to protect was not sufficiently discharged by initiating involuntary commitment, and could only be discharged by warning the identifiable victims.

Implications

This case created a clear distinction between the duty to protect and the subordinate duty to warn, and made communications by a third party indicating threatening statements equivalent to statements made directly by that person.

References