Currie v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
HAYNSWORTH, Senior Circuit Judge:
The difficult question for decision is whether the North Carolina Supreme Court would impose upon a psychotherapist an affirmative duty to seek the involuntary commitment of a patient the therapist believed to be dangerous to others when the therapist had given warnings to those believed to be within the zone of danger. In this suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (because the therapists are federal employees), the district court held that the North Carolina Supreme Court would impose such a duty, but that the duty would not be violated by a simple want of…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Tarasoff v. Regents of University of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Lipari v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.District Court, D. Nebraska · 1980
- Pangburn v. SaadCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
- Semler v. Psychiatric InstituteCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1976
- Abernathy v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1985
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Schuster v. AltenbergWisconsin Supreme Court · 1988
- Estates of Morgan v. Fairfield Family Counseling CenterOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- Fraser v. United StatesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
- Boynton v. BurglassDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1991
- Adams v. Board of Sedgwick County CommissionersSupreme Court of Kansas · 2009
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.