In which situation does a health-care worker have a duty to warn a potential victim?

Choice A reason: Cursing at family members, while inappropriate and potentially distressing, does not constitute a credible threat of harm. It lacks specificity and intent to injure, and therefore does not trigger the legal or ethical duty to warn. Choice B reason: Manipulative behavior and staff splitting are common in certain personality disorders and may pose a risk to the client’s own safety, but they do not involve threats to others. The duty to warn applies to threats against identifiable third parties, not self-harm. Choice C reason: Paranoid delusions and hallucinations may increase risk, but unless they involve specific threats toward others, they do not meet the threshold for duty to warn. The presence of psychotic symptoms alone is insufficient without a targeted threat. Choice D reason: Specific threats toward an identifiable person meet the legal criteria for duty to warn, established in the Tarasoff ruling. Health-care workers must take steps to protect the potential victim, which may include notifying law enforcement or the individual.