According to Thompson vs Alameda, what is necessary for Tarasoff to apply?

The correct answer highlights the necessity that the victim must be identifiable for the Tarasoff duty to warn to apply. In the context of California law, particularly stemming from the Tarasoff case, mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened by a patient. This duty arises when the therapist, based on the client's statements or behavior, identifies a specific individual who is at risk of harm.

The requirement for the victim to be identifiable emphasizes the seriousness of the potential threat. Therapists are not obligated to warn generic or vague threats, as this could lead to unnecessary alarm or violations of confidentiality. For a therapist to ethically and legally make a decision to breach confidentiality and warn a potential victim, that individual must be clear and identifiable in the context of the threat expressed by the client.