Psychologist Holtz is working with a patient,Rebecca,who has expressed the intention to seriously harm two of her acquaintances.If you apply the principle set forth by the Supreme Court of California in the Tarasoff v.Regents of the University of California case,Psychologist Holtz
A) has,because of the bystander rule,no duty to warn the foreseeable victims about Rebecca's expressed intention to harm them.
B) has a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect foreseeable victims of Rebecca's violence.
C) is in a special relationship with patients,and this relationship creates a privilege of confidentiality between the communicants.
D) will be held to a strict duty of care and will be held liable for any victim's injuries if Holtz failed to warn them of Rebecca's potential violence toward them.
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q33: A subpoena duces tecum is different from
Q34: The Environmental Protection Agency was investigating whether
Q35: Which statement about interpretive rules is correct?
A)Interpretive
Q36: The purpose of the Freedom of Information
Q37: Tina wishes to learn what records the
Q39: The U.S.Supreme Court's holding in Wards Cove
Q40: TECO Coal Corporation is interested in the
Q41: ATC,Inc.offered health insurance benefits to unmarried,same-sex domestic
Q42: Discuss the two federal statutes that give
Q43: Discuss the four most important limitations on
Unlock this Answer For Free Now!
View this answer and more for free by performing one of the following actions
Scan the QR code to install the App and get 2 free unlocks
Unlock quizzes for free by uploading documents