Final answer:
The Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California case in 1976 established the duty of psychotherapists to disclose privileged information if a third party is endangered. This case is synonymous with the 'duty to protect' principle, obligating mental health professionals to take steps to protect individuals threatened by a patient's serious violent intentions.
Step-by-step explanation:
The case that you're referring to is Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, which took place in 1976. This landmark decision established that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by a patient. The ruling specifically requires psychotherapists to disclose privileged information if they believe a third party is endangered.
In the Tarasoff case, the court held that when a therapist determines or should determine that their patient presents a serious danger of violence to another, they have an obligation to use reasonable care to protect the intended victim against such danger. This may involve warning the potential victim, notifying the police, or taking other reasonable steps to protect the threatened individual. The decision originates from a tragic situation where a patient confided to his therapist his intention to kill a woman, and then later fulfilled the threat. The woman's parents sued the therapist and the university, leading to the court's decision that there was a duty to warn the woman.