St. John's Law Review Volume 58 Number 3 Volume 58, Spring 1984, Number 3 Article 3 June 2012 Affirmative Duties in Tort Following Tarasoff Thomas J. Murphy Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview Recommended Citation Murphy, Thomas J. (1984) "Affirmative Duties in Tort Following Tarasoff," St. John's Law Review: Vol. 58 : No. 3 , Article 3. Available at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview/vol58/iss3/3 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in St. John's Law Review by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact
[email protected]. NOTES AFFIRMATIVE DUTIES IN TORT FOLLOWING TARASOFF The duty to come to the aid of another in danger is recognized in most moral systems.1 Nevertheless, as a general rule, the com- mon law recognizes no legal duty to render assistance to a fellow human in need.2 The most common justification for this dichotomy ' The best-known example of the moral efficacy of aiding a person in peril is the para- ble of the Good Samaritan. See Luke 10:30-37. Indeed, in discussions of a duty to rescue, the Good Samaritan principle is invariably used to illustrate the moral necessity of rescue, see, e.g., Note, ProfessionalObligation and the Duty to Rescue: When Must a Psychiatrist Protect His Patient'sIntended Victim?, 91 YALE L.J. 1430, 1433 (1982), and state statutes promulgated to encourage doctors to render emergency aid are known generically as "Good Samaritan" statutes, see, e.g., ILL.