business conducted on these terms are so extreme as to enkindle doubt whether a flaw may not exist in the implication of a duty that exposes to these consequences. Id. at 444.
(n12) 111 N.E. 1050 (N.Y. 1916).
(n13) "[W]hat is released or set in motion [in MacPherson] is a physical force. We are now asked to say whether a like liability attaches to the circulation of a thought or a release of the explosive power resident in words." 174 N.E. at 445.
(n14) See Denzil Y. Causey, Jr., Accountants' Liability in an Indeterminate Amount for an Indeterminate Time to an Indeterminate Class: An Analysis of Touche Ross & Co. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 57 Miss. L.J. 379, 380-82 (1987).
(n15) 3 RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS Section 552 (1977).
(n16) Id. (2)(a).
(n17) A recent survey found 16 states that follow, or were predicted to follow, the Restatement position. See Herskovitz, supra note 6, at 25. Jurisdictions are currently confronting this issue quite frequently and the compromise Restatement position is likely to be the most popular one for awhile.
(n18) See Francis Achampong, Common Law Liability of Accountants for Negligence to Non- Contractual Parties: Recent Developments, 91 DICK, L. REV. 677, 684 (1987) (citing Rusch Factors--Inc. v. Levin, 284 F.Supp. 85, 92-93 (D.R.I. 1968).
(n19) 320 P.2d 16, 19 (Cal. 1958).
(n20) See, e.g., Aluma Kraft Mfg. Co., v. Elmer Fox & Co., 493 S.W.2d 378 (Mo. Ct. App. 1973). Later, in Lindner Fund v. Abney, 770 S.W.2d 437 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989), the court clarified that third parties, in order to recover, must belong to a limited class of foreseeable plaintiffs. "The purpose of the rule in Aluma Kraft ... is to prevent accountants from being held liable to the public at large." Id. at 438.
(n21) See Aluma Kraft Mfg. Co., 493 S.W.2d at 383.
(n22) See H. Rosenblum v. Adler, 461 A.2d 138 (N.J. 1983); Citizens State Bank v. Timm, Schmidt & Co., 335 N.W.2d 361 (Wis. 1983); Touche Ross & Co., v. Commercial Union Insurance Co., 514 So. 2d 315 (Miss. 1987)i Blue Bell, Inc. v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., 715 S.W.2d 408 (Text Ct. App. 1986). Arizona could soon be joining this list. See Berton and Adler, supra note 5 (noting that in action against Price Waterhouse, the trial judge "instructed the jury that the firm could nonetheless be liable ... if it was 'reasonably foreseeable' that an acquirer . .. would rely on Price Waterhouse's audits.") (emphasis added).
See also International Mortgage Co. v. John P. Butler Acct. Corp., 223 Cal. Rptr. 218 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986) overruled by Bily v. Arthur Young & Co., 834 P.2d 745 (Cal. 1992). For six years