I dissent from the conclusion in part III of the majority opinion that plaintiffs’ complaint states no cause of action arising from Alameda County’s negligence in failing to warn James’ mother that he might harm neighborhood children. In holding that the county is not legally responsible for its negligence, the majority in effect amend the Government Code, creating an immunity from liability which the Legislature has not enacted.
The complaint alleges that the county released James, a juvenile in county custody, to the custody of James’ mother. The county knew that James had “extremely dangerous and violent propensities,- regarding young children and that sexual assaults upon young children and violence. . .were a likely result of releasing [him] into the community”; it knew also that James had “indicated that he would, if released, take the life of a young child residing in the neighborhood.” Nevertheless the county failed to warn either James’ mother, the local police, or the parents of neighborhood children of the impending danger. Within 24 hours of James’ release to the custody of his mother, he assaulted and murdered Jonathan Thompson, plaintiffs’ son.
The issue before us is whether the foregoing allegations state a cause of action for wrongful death against the county. The basis for upholding the complaint is clear and straightforward. The county, having custody of James, stood in a “special relationship” to James that imports a duty to control his conduct and to warn of danger. (Tarasojf v. Regents of University of California (1976) 17 Cal.3d 425, 435-437 [131 Cal.Rptr. 14, 551 P.2d 334, 83 A.L.R.3d 1166].) The county placed James in the temporary custody of his mother without informing her that James had threatened to kill a neighborhood child. Whether that failure to warn was negligent and proximately caused Jonathan’s death are questions of fact which cannot be resolved on demurrer. Since under the alleged facts the county can claim no statutory immunity from liability arising from its failure to warn (see Johnson v. State of California (1968) 69 Cal.2d 782, 797 [73 Cal.Rptr. 240, 447 P.2d 352]), the complaint states a cause of action.
*760The majority opinion in reaching a contrary result misreads controlling precedent. Although both Johnson v. State of California, supra, 69 Cal.2d 782 and Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, supra, 17 Cal.3d 425, involved a failure to warn an identifiable victim, the reasoning of those decisions cannot be confined to that narrow scope. Instead, the cases stand for the principle that a special relationship, such as that between the state and a person in its custody, establishes a duty to use reasonable care to avert danger to foreseeable victims. If the victim can be identified in advance, a warning to him may discharge that duty; if he cannot be identified, reasonable care may require other action. But the absence of an identifiable victim does not postulate the absence of a duty of reasonable care.
Our opinion in Tarasoff makes clear that failure to warn a victim who is identifiable does not constitute an essential element of the cause of action. We noted that the duty of care requires the defendant “to take one or more of various steps, depending upon the nature of the case. Thus it may call for him to warn the intended victim or others likely to apprise the victim of the danger, to notify the police, or to take whatever other steps are reasonably necessary under the circumstances.” (17 Cal. 3d at p. 431.)
In upholding plaintiffs’ cause of action in Tarasoff, we relied on a federal district court decision, Merchants Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Fargo v. United States (D.N.D. 1967) 272 F.Supp. 409. In that case the Veterans Administration arranged for a patient to work on a local farm, but did not inform the farmer of the patient’s threats to kill the patient’s wife. The farmer, unaware of the danger to the wife, permitted the patient to come and go freely during nonworking hours. The patient borrowed a car, drove to his wife’s residence, and killed her. The court held the Veteran’s Administration liable, not because it failed to warn the wife, but because it failed to notify the farmer of the need to supervise the patient closely.
The principles underlying the Tarasoff decision indicate that even the existence of an identifiable victim is not essential to the cause of action. Our decision rested upon the basic tenet of tort law that a “‘defendant owes a duty of care to all persons who are foreseeably endangered by his conduct.’” (Pp. 434-435, quoting Rodriquez v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 382, 399 [115 Cal.Rptr. 765, 525 P.2d 669].) (Italics added.) The “avoidance of foreseeable harm,” we explained, “requires a defendant to control the conduct of another person, or to *761warn of such conduct. . .if the defendant bears some special relationship to the dangerous person or to the potential victim.” (P. 435.) The relationship between therapist and patient fulfilled this requirement in Tarasoff, the relationship between the county and a juvenile under its custody suffices in the present case.1
At no point did we hold that such duty of care runs only to identifiable victims. We cited numerous examples to the contrary. (See 17 Cal.3d at p. 436, cases cited fns. 7 & 8.) One example makes the point particularly clear: “[a] doctor must.. .warn a patient if the patient’s condition or medication renders certain conduct, such as driving a car, dangerous to others.” (17 Cal.3d at p. 436; cf. Harland v. State of California, supra, 75 Cal.App.3d at pp. 475, 482.) It would be absurd to confine that duty to motorists or pedestrians whom the doctor could identify in advance.
Thus under the reasoning of Tarasoff and the principles of tort law endorsed in the case, the proper inquiry turns on whether Jonathan Thompson was a foreseeable victim. The complaint alleges that James had threatened to “take the life of a young child residing in the neighborhood”; since Jonathan falls within that description his killing was clearly a foreseeable consequence of James’ release and subsequent lack of supervision. Whether Jonathan was also an identifiable victim is relevant not to the existence of a duty of care, but only to whether a warning to Jonathan personally was a reasonable means of discharging that duty. If, as the majority claim, a warning to the neighborhood families was not a reasonable way to reduce the danger, that fact cannot absolve the state of the duty to employ other methods. In particular, it cannot absolve the state from its failure to warn James’ mother so that she could exercise proper care in observing and supervising James and thereby preventing the harm that ensued.
*762Thus no precedent supports the majority’s unique attempt to limit the imposition upon defendant of a duty of due care to warn only to a situation in which a person commits a tort upon a victim who can be identified in advance of the wrongful conduct. Even the reading of precedent most favorable to the majority will reveal only that most, but not all, prior cases did involve identifiable victims. Thus the majority position must stand, if it can stand at all, upon the policy considerations it advances.
As to policy considerations, the majority first state that although parole and probation decisions are imprecise, and necessarily present an element of danger to the public, “the Legislature has nonetheless as a matter of public policy elected to continue those programs even though such risks must be borne by the public.” (Majority opn. p. 754.) We appreciate the majority’s fear that imposition of liability might interfere with the discretion of agencies who must decide whether to grant parole or probation. The Legislature, however, has considered that subject and determined that providing immunity to the state for basic policy decisions is a sufficient safeguard, and that it is unnecessary further to shield the state from liability for implementation of those decisions. As we explained in Johnson v. State of California, supra, 69 Cal. 2d 782, 799: “once the proper authorities have made the basic policy decision —to place a youth with foster parents, for example—the role of. . . immunity ends; subsequent negligent actions, such as the failure to give reasonable warnings to the foster parents actually selected, are subject to legal redress.”2
Twelve years have passed since we filed the decision in Johnson. The Legislature has not amended the Government Code to enlarge governmental immunity beyond that described in Johnson. We have heard no outcry that Johnson imperils the state’s parole and probation programs, no claim that the liability for failure to warn imposed by that case has interfered with legislative policy. We thus perceive no need for judicial creation of an expanded immunity.3
*763In sum, whatever policy considerations impelled the Legislature to establish parole and probation programs, the Legislature did not believe those considerations preclude liability for negligent failure to warn. The majority cannot rely on legislative policy to grant a larger immunity than the Legislature has elected to provide. In rejecting the Legislar ture’s judgment, the majority protect the government from liability for its own negligence when the Legislature finds such protection unnecessary.
The policy considerations favoring plaintiffs’ cause of action in the present setting—considerations not taken into account by the majority —are weighty and substantial. The principle of compensating victims of negligence in order to recompense their injury and to deter future negligence is fundamental in our judicial system. Thus as a general principle, a plaintiff injured as a proximate result of a defendant’s negligence is entitled to compensation. (See Civ. Code, § 1714, subd. (a); Rodriguez v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., supra, 12 Cal.3d 382, 399.) Even if the government is the tortfeasor, “when there is negligence, the rule is liability, immunity is the exception.” (Muskopf v. Corning Hospital Dist. (1961) 55 Cal.2d 211, 219 [11 Cal-Rptr. 89, 359 P.2d 457]; Baldwin v. State of California (1972) 6 Cal.3d 424, 435 [99 Cal.Rptr. 145, 491 P.2d 1121].) Consequently “[u]nless the Legislature has clearly provided for immunity, the important societal goal of compensating injured parties for damages caused by willful or negligent acts must prevail.” (Ramos v. Madera (1971) 4 Cal.3d 685, 692 [94 Cal.Rptr. 421, 484 P.2d 93].) In the balance, I believe these basic precepts outweigh the majority’s anxiety that the Legislature did not go far enough in immunizing implementation of parole and probation programs.
The other policy considerations advanced by the majority are of less moment. The majority quote a student comment (Tarasoff and the Psychotherapist’s Duty to Warn (1975) 12 San Diego L.Rev. 932, 942-943, fn. 75) to the effect that predictions of dangerousness are not sufficiently reliable to justify civil commitment of persons as dangerous to others.4 The present case does not involve civil commitment. Moreover, *764the argument that predictions of danger are so unreliable that they should not serve as a basis for a warning was expressly rejected in Tarasoff (17 Cal.3d at pp. 438-439) and is contrary to legislative policy. (See Evid. Code, § 1024.)
Finally, the majority note the practical problems of warning the public at large. When it comes to warning James’ mother, however, the majority say only that she would be unlikely to relay that warning to others in the neighborhood. They do not consider that a mother, when warned that her son is a serious danger to young children, might take special care to watch him, to control his activities, to know his whereabouts, and to make sure he is not alone with small children. Neither do they consider that James’ mother as his legal custodian would, given proper warnings, have a legal duty to so control James’ behavior. Confined by their narrow concept of warning identifiable victims, the majority do not consider the obvious.
In sum, the policy considerations discussed by the majority relate to the discretionary decision whether to grant parole or probation, the wisdom of civil commitment of dangerous persons, and the practical problems of warning large classes of possible victims. It is striking how little relevance these considerations have to the present case. None bear significantly on the question whether the county should have warned James’ mother.
I believe that as a matter of law and common sense the county, before it released James to his mother’s custody, had a duty to tell her of his homicidal threats and inclinations. The complaint alleges that the county’s failure to warn her was negligent, and proximately caused Jonathan’s death. Thus under settled principles of tort law as explained in our prior opinion in Tarasoff, the complaint states a cause of action. I would therefore reverse the judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint and remand the cause to the superior court for further proceedings.
Mosk, J., concurred.
Appellants’ petition for a rehearing was denied August 21, 1980. Manuel, J., did not participate therein. Tobriner, J. and Mosk, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.
Buford v. State of California (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 811 [164 Cal.Rptr. 264], also involved an assault upon an allegedly foreseeable but not identifiable victim. The Court of Appeal stated that “[t]he complaint shows that Daniels [the assailant] was confined to Atascadero State Hospital for commission of several criminal offenses and that various personnel were assigned to his rehabilitative care both during commitment and during his leave of absence. The nature of the relationship here resembles those cases [Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, supra, 17 Cal.3d 425; Harland v. State of California (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 475 (142 Cal.Rptr. 201) (state and resident of veteran’s home)] in which a duty was imposed as a matter of law. Although there are substantial questions about the foreseeability of potential victims and the reasonableness of making a public warning about Daniels’ release, these are questions for the trier of fact and should not be resolved against plaintiffs at the complaint stage.” (104 Cal.App.3d at p. 824.)
The majority opinion implicitly recognizes the distinction drawn in the quoted language from Johnson. In holding plaintiffs’ complaint states no cause of action for negligence in releasing James or in selecting his mother as custodian, the majority rely squarely upon statutory immunities; in finding no cause of action for failure to warn the mother, they speak in terms of policy considerations which, presumably, did not persuade the Legislature to enact a corresponding immunity.
lt is arguable that imposition of a duty to warn the general public whenever a prisoner who might possibly be dangerous is released on parole or probation might, through the impact of repeated warnings, arouse the public to curtail parole and proba*763tion programs. Imposition of numerous sizable judgments for breach of that duty could have the same effect. But neither consideration has any significant bearing upon liability for failure to warn the person to whose custody the prisoner is released.
The quoted language from the San Diego Law Review, while only of tangential relevance to the present case, has serious implications. It implies (a) that Tarasoff was wrongly decided, and (b) that the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, *764§ 5000 et seq.) and other statutes providing for commitment of persons dangerous to others are unwise and probably unconstitutional. I doubt that the justices of the majority subscribe to either proposition.