Estates of Morgan v. Fairfield Family Counseling Center; Application of Traditional Tort Law Post-Tarasoff

Authors

Todd Walker M.D.

Abstract

This Note examines the Ohio Supreme Court’s reasoning in Morgan and the legal obligations of the psychotherapist. Section II delineates the background in this area of the law. Section III presents the statement of the case. Finally, Section IV analyzes the Court’s decision. Essentially, the questions to be discussed are (1) whether a duty is owed; (2) if so, to whom that duty is owed; (3) how to discharge that duty; (4) what is the applicable standard of care; and (5) why is it fair (or not) to hold the psychotherapist responsible for consequences that only indirectly affect the patient? The answer to these questions parallel the elements of an action in tort for negligence.

Recommended Citation

Walker, Todd M.D. (1998) "Estates of Morgan v. Fairfield Family Counseling Center; Application of Traditional Tort Law Post-Tarasoff," Akron Law Review: Vol. 31: Iss. 2, Article 5.
Available at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol31/iss2/5