<P> Samsung issued a warning with respect to its Galaxy Note 7 smart phone because of concerns about the product's safety . </P> <P> Most notably, a property owner has a duty to warn persons on the property of various hazards, depending on the status of the person on the property . For example, the property owner must warn an anticipated or discovered trespasser of deadly conditions known to the property owner, but that would be hidden from the trespasser . The property owner must warn licensees of all known hazards (whether deadly or not), and must warn invitees of all dangers that the property owner can discover through a reasonable inspection of the property . </P> <P> In clinical psychological practice in the United States, duty to warn requires a clinician who has reasonable grounds to believe that a client may be in imminent danger of harming himself or others to warn the possible victims . Duty to warn is among the few exceptions to a client's right to confidentiality and the therapist's ethical obligation to maintain confidential information related in the context of the therapeutic relationship . In the American Psychological Association's Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, the therapist's duty to warn is implicitly contained within the guidelines for disclosure of confidential information without the consent of the client: "Psychologists disclose confidential information without the consent of the individual only as mandated by law, or where permitted by law for a valid purpose such as to...protect the client / patient, psychologist, or others from harm ." In situations when there is cause for serious concern about a client harming someone, the clinician must breach confidentiality to warn the identified victim / third party about imminent danger . Although laws vary somewhat in different states, in general, the danger must be imminent and the breach of confidentiality should be made to someone who is in a position to reduce the risk of the danger . People who would be appropriate recipients of such information would include the intended victim and the law enforcement . </P> <P> Duty to warn is embedded in the historical context of two rulings (1974 and 1976) of the California Supreme Court in the case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California . The legal case was brought by the Tarasoff family after their daughter, Tatiana Tarasoff, was murdered by Prosenjit Poddar, who had received psychological services in the university counseling center . Poddar had made it known to his psychologist, during a session, that he wanted to kill Tarasoff, and his psychologist informed the campus police, following the session, of the danger that Poddar posed to himself and others and suggested that hospitalization might be necessary . The psychologist also wrote a letter requesting assistance to the chief of campus police . Upon investigation by the police, during which Poddar was briefly detained for questioning, he was released because his mental state seemed to be stable and rational . Shortly thereafter, the director of the department of psychiatry at Cowell Hospital asked for the police to return the letter and ordered that Poddar's therapy notes should be destroyed . No one ever warned Tatiana Tarasoff . Poddar killed Tatiana Tarasoff on October 27, 1969, and her parents filed suit against several of the organizations and individuals who had been involved . The case was initially dismissed by a lower court, but her parents appealed to the California Supreme Court, which upheld the appeal in 1974 and reaffirmed the ruling in 1976 . The case was settled out of court when Tarasoff's parents received a substantial sum of money . </P>

Duty to warn is not mandatory in which of these states