 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Miller v. Miller & Miller Accountants9/5/2001
ls in the medical community in which the alleged malpractice took place, according to the body of law that has developed in this area of evidence. Bruni v. Tatsumi (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 127, 131-132.
Appellee argues the only exceptions are where the issues regarding standard of care, breach of standard of care and causation are clearly within the realm of a lay person's knowledge. Appellee argues this can rarely be the case in an accounting malpractice case. See, Goldwasser & Arnold, Accountants' Liability, Practicing Law Institute (1996) 4-39. In its judgment entry after trial filed July 19, 2000, the trial court specifically found "there were some negligent claims which could go to the jury without expert testimony." The trial court limited the issue of negligence to whether "an accountant at Miller and Miller, other than Robert Troyer, was negligent in performing a duty which he agreed to perform" for appellant and "that negligence proximately caused an injury" to appellant. Vol. IV T. at 474. Appellant had argued with the trial court's analysis that appellee was "negligent in not determining that those numbers were not good * efore making the recommendation to him." Vol. IV T. at 427-428. The crux of appellant's argument is that appellee induced him to purchase the company by assuring him the "numbers were good" and that appellee could vouch for the numbers. Vol. IV T. at 427. Admittedly, the numbers were not good and as described by appellee's counsel in opening statement "the bottom line is this is a tough business *problems with customers, problems with employees, problems with inventory, but the bottom line is this is a scrap business. You're buying a bunch of junkie phones in mass *so the fact is it's all scrap in that inventory." Vol. I T. at 77-78. In truth, the problem between the parties revolved around the inventory, accounts receivable and accounts payable reported by appellee to appellant. The essential issue therefore was whether there were misrepresentations made by appellee to appellant and did appellant rely on these representations. A partner of appellee, Mr. Klopfer, testified. It was his expert opinion that if he was advising a client about to purchase a business, he would suggest "the previous three years financial statements and tax returns *an audit of the inventory *a physical count, that would be appraising * he whole spectrum." Vol. I T. at 91-92. Mr. Klopfer would also suggest visiting the company, observing the facility and the work force and pricing the inventory vis à vis book value. Vol. I T. at 91, 92-96. Clearly, this was an expert's opinion of what an accounting firm should advise and do to help a client in purchasing a business. Therefore, there was in fact some expert testimony as to what the standard of care was for general accounting practice. Despite the arguments of trial counsel and the trial court's acquiescence to it, we find there was some expert testimony as to general accounting practice sub judice. The jury therefore was given a guide by which to measure and judge the activities of appellee. The second prong of this cross-assignment of error challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. Appellee claims there was insufficient evidence to support the claim that it negligently failed to perform agreed upon professional services and such failure caused appellant damages. A judgment supported by some competent, credible evidence will not be reversed by a reviewing court as against the manifest weight of the evidence. C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Construction Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 279. A reviewing court must not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court where there exists some competent and credible evidence supporting the judgment rendered by the trial court.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|