California Law and Ethics Practice Exam

In Thompson v. County of Alameda, what was the reason the therapist did not have a duty to warn?

1. The threat was deemed as a joke

2. The potential victim was not readily identifiable

3. The therapist did not have sufficient information

4. The patient was not considered dangerous

The correct answer is: The potential victim was not readily identifiable

In Thompson v. County of Alameda, the primary reason the therapist did not have a duty to warn is that the potential victim was not readily identifiable. This case highlights a crucial aspect of the duty to warn, which is triggered when a therapist reasonably believes that a specific, identifiable person is in imminent danger due to a patient's threats or intentions. If the potential victim is vague or unspecified, the therapist is not obligated to take action under the duty to warn law. This emphasizes the importance of the clarity and specificity of threats in determining the responsibilities of mental health professionals in protecting potential victims. The other choices address various factors that, while they might influence a therapist's judgment or responsibilities, do not directly align with the legal standards set forth regarding the duty to warn. An ambiguous or non-specific threat creates uncertainty about the requirement to act, which is why the therapist's duty in this instance was not activated.