X hits on this document





62 / 90

(n170) See Shapiro v. Glekel, 380 F. Supp. 1053 (S.D.N.Y. 1974) (New York law); National Security Corp. v. Lybrand, 9 N.Y.S.2d 554 (N.Y. App. Div. 1939).

(n171) See, e.g., Fullmer v. Wohlfeiler & Beck, 905 F.2d 1394 (10th Cir. 1990) (Utah law); Lincoln Grain Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, 345 N.W.2d 300 (Neb. 1984).

(n172) Menzel, supra note 167, at 296 (citing comment, supra note 168 at 83).

(n173) N.Y.S.2d at 563 ("We are not prepared to admit that accountants are immune from the consequences of their negligence because those who employ them have conducted their businesses negligently.").

(n174) Id.

(n175) If the client were negligent "in connection with the transfer of funds which occurred at about the time of each audit and that such negligence contributed to the [auditor's] false reports, only then would it be sufficient to raise a defense to the action." 9 N.Y.S.2d at 563.

(n176) See Capital Mortgage Corp. v. Coopers & Lybrand, 369 N.W.2d 922, 925 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985) ("We find the application of comparative negligence to be proper as neither party is absolved of fault due to the other's negligence.").

(n177) See Jennings et al., supra note 102.

(n178) 380 F. Supp. 1053 (S.D.N.Y. 1974) (New York law).

(n179) Id. at 1058 (relying heavily on Carl S. Hawkins, Professional Negligence Liability of Public Accountants, 12 VAND. L. REV. 797, 809-11 (1959)).

(n180) 486 S.W.2d 914 (Teen. Ct. App. 1972).

(n181) Id. at 920 (quoting Craig, 208 N.Y.S. at 268).

(n182) Menzel, supra note 167, at 305 n.94.

(n183) RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS Section 552A (1977) provides, "The recipient of a negligent misrepresentation is barred from recovery for pecuniary loss suffered in reliance upon it if he is negligent in so relying."

(n184) Menzel, supra note 167, at 305.

(n185) That Restatement Section 552A is silent with respect to the application of general principles of contributory negligence to cases of auditor liability hardly precludes those principles (found elsewhere in the Restatement) from having applicability to the special case.


Document info
Document views282
Page views282
Page last viewedTue Jan 17 13:17:22 UTC 2017