Thapar v. Zezulka

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a psychiatrist owed no duty to a third party for negligent misdiagnosis or treatment even where the patient had previously told the psychiatrist that he \[felt] like killing\ the third party
• holding a mental-health professional owes no duty to warn third parties of a patient’s threats in the absence of a doctor-patient relationship with the third parties
• affirming summary judgment against plaintiff on negligence claim because 33 “we have never recognized the only underlying duty upon which such a cause of action could be based”
• affirming summary judgment against plaintiff on negligence claim because 33 “we have never recognized the only underlying duty upon which such a cause of action could be based”
• “Whether a legal duty exists is a threshold question of law for the court to decide from the facts surrounding the occurrence in question.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).