In the case of Bellah vs Greenson, what circumstance does Tarasoff NOT apply to?

In the case of Bellah vs. Greenson, Tarasoff's duty to warn and protect does not apply to threats of suicide or threats against property. The Tarasoff decision specifically focuses on situations where a therapist has a duty to protect a third party from violent threats made by a client. This legal precedent primarily addresses threats of harm to identifiable individuals rather than to self-harm or damage to property.

With threats of suicide, the legal duty varies; while clinicians may take steps to prevent harm to the client, the Tarasoff ruling does not extend the same duty to warn third parties in such cases. Similarly, threats against property are also not included under the Tarasoff obligation, as they do not pose a direct threat to human life. Therefore, both circumstances of threats of suicide and threats against property fall outside the parameters delineated by the Tarasoff case, leading to the conclusion that Tarasoff does not apply to either situation.