Limiting Auditors Defenses in Negligence Lawsuits: Recent Developments in the Audit Interference Rule

Stephen E. Blythe
Stephen E. Blythe * §
Contact
§ Abu Dhabi University Abu Dhabi University

Send Message

To: Author

Limiting Auditors Defenses in Negligence Lawsuits: Recent Developments in the Audit Interference Rule

Article Fingerprint

ReserarchID

MBRNW48V

Limiting Auditors Defenses in Negligence Lawsuits: Recent Developments in the Audit Interference Rule Banner

AI TAKEAWAY

Connecting with the Eternal Ground
Access Review Comments
  • English
  • Afrikaans
  • Albanian
  • Amharic
  • Arabic
  • Armenian
  • Azerbaijani
  • Basque
  • Belarusian
  • Bengali
  • Bosnian
  • Bulgarian
  • Catalan
  • Cebuano
  • Chichewa
  • Chinese (Simplified)
  • Chinese (Traditional)
  • Corsican
  • Croatian
  • Czech
  • Danish
  • Dutch
  • Esperanto
  • Estonian
  • Filipino
  • Finnish
  • French
  • Frisian
  • Galician
  • Georgian
  • German
  • Greek
  • Gujarati
  • Haitian Creole
  • Hausa
  • Hawaiian
  • Hebrew
  • Hindi
  • Hmong
  • Hungarian
  • Icelandic
  • Igbo
  • Indonesian
  • Irish
  • Italian
  • Japanese
  • Javanese
  • Kannada
  • Kazakh
  • Khmer
  • Korean
  • Kurdish (Kurmanji)
  • Kyrgyz
  • Lao
  • Latin
  • Latvian
  • Lithuanian
  • Luxembourgish
  • Macedonian
  • Malagasy
  • Malay
  • Malayalam
  • Maltese
  • Maori
  • Marathi
  • Mongolian
  • Myanmar (Burmese)
  • Nepali
  • Norwegian
  • Pashto
  • Persian
  • Polish
  • Portuguese
  • Punjabi
  • Romanian
  • Russian
  • Samoan
  • Scots Gaelic
  • Serbian
  • Sesotho
  • Shona
  • Sindhi
  • Sinhala
  • Slovak
  • Slovenian
  • Somali
  • Spanish
  • Sundanese
  • Swahili
  • Swedish
  • Tajik
  • Tamil
  • Telugu
  • Thai
  • Turkish
  • Ukrainian
  • Urdu
  • Uzbek
  • Vietnamese
  • Welsh
  • Xhosa
  • Yiddish
  • Yoruba
  • Zulu
Font Type
Font Size
Font Size
Bedground

Abstract

The objectives of this article are to: (1) define the audit interference rule (hereinafter “A.I.R.”) and describe its purpose; (2) summarize the historical case law pertinent to the A.I.R.; (3) delineate the U.S. states that recognize the A.I.R. from those that do not; (4) explain how the A.I.R. is impacted by the existence of a state’s comparative negligence statute; and (5) tell how recent developments in case law are affecting the A.I.R. The purpose of the A.I.R. is to limit the scope of an auditor’s contributory negligence defense in a negligence lawsuit filed by a client. The A.I.R. provides that the client’s negligence is a defense only when it has contributed to the accountant’s failure to perform his contract and to report the truth. New York was the first state to recognize the A.I.R.

References

44 Cites in Article
  1. Stull V,Ragsdale Unknown Title.
  2. (1981). Unknown Title.
  3. (2007). Reilly, Mary Margaret, (born 22 May 1953), Partner, Deloitte (formerly Deloitte & Touche) LLP, 1987–2013.
  4. (1996). Unknown Title.
  5. Halla Nursery,V Baumann-Furrie,& Co (1990). Unknown Title.
  6. (1220). Arbitration and Award. In General. Court Determines Questions of Coverage and Liability despite Arbitration Clause in Standard Uninsured Motorist Provision. Cruger v. Allstate Ins. Co. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1964).
  7. Hawkins (1959). Non-audit liability of accountants.
  8. Menzel (1983). CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE OF PATIENT AS DEFENSE TO CHARGE OF MALPRACTICE..
  9. Note The Peculiar Treatment of Contributory Negligence in Accountants' Liability Cases.
  10. N (1990). Legal Cases.
  11. (2003). Unknown Title.
  12. (1985). Unknown Title.
  13. Louise Hall (1956). New Threat to Washington Landmark.
  14. Mayer Hoffman,Mccann (2010). Unknown Title.
  15. Comeau Rupp (1992). U.
  16. (2015). Comerica.
  17. C (1930). Unknown Title.
  18. (1220). Arbitration and Award. In General. Court Determines Questions of Coverage and Liability despite Arbitration Clause in Standard Uninsured Motorist Provision. Cruger v. Allstate Ins. Co. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1964).
  19. Unknown Title.
  20. E Ark (1992). Unknown Title.
  21. Fullmer V,Wohlfeiler,Beck (1990). Unknown Title.
  22. Logan Greenstein,V Co,Burgess,Marketing (1987). Quarterly progress report, April--June 1976.
  23. Trust Co (2012). Whineray, Sir Wilson (James), (10 July 1935–22 Oct. 2012), Chairman, National Bank of New Zealand Ltd, 1998–2004 (Director, 1993–2004).
  24. Hall,Co (2003). Materials index.
  25. (1989). Unknown Title.
  26. Halla Nursery,V Baumann-Furrie,& Co (1990). Unknown Title.
  27. Jack Greenberg (1999). Unknown Title.
  28. Jenia Iontcheva (2001). Sovereignty on Our Terms: In re Vitamins Antitrust Litigation, 120 F. Supp. 2d 45 (D. D. C. 2000).
  29. S (2009). Lectureabstracts Antwerpen 2009.
  30. (2001). IN RE: DELTA INVESTMENTS & DEVELOPMENT, LLC Case No. 12-01160-NPO (Bankr. S.D. Miss. Jan. 8, 2019).
  31. Jewelcor Jewelers,& Distrib (1988). Unknown Title.
  32. Lincoln Grain Unknown Title.
  33. (1984). Unknown Title.
  34. (1939). Unknown Title.
  35. Pnc Bank,Inc Kentucky (2011). PNC Inc - Printed Circuit Board Manufacturer.
  36. W Pa (1994). Unknown Title.
  37. Schein Ernst,Young Unknown Title.
  38. Shapiro V Unknown Title.
  39. S (1974). Unknown Title.
  40. & Stroud V. Arthur Andersen,Co (2001). Unknown Title.
  41. Stull V,Ragsdale Unknown Title.
  42. (1981). Appendix D..
  43. (2020). Erratum.
  44. Hannah Calkins (1987). State Beat: Texas Psychological Association fights to keep state psychology board independent.
Show All References
Download References

Funding

No external funding was declared for this work.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

No ethics committee approval was required for this article type.

Data Availability

Not applicable for this article.

How to Cite This Article

Stephen E. Blythe. 2013. "Limiting Auditors Defenses in Negligence Lawsuits: Recent Developments in the Audit Interference Rule". Global Journal of Management and Business Research - D: Accounting & Auditing GJMBR-D Volume 13 (GJMBR Volume 13 Issue D4).

More Citation Formats

Download Citation

  • Open Access
  • CC-BY-ND-NC 4.0
Download Article
Access OJS
Journal Specifications

Crossref Journal DOI 10.17406/GJMBR

Print ISSN 0975-5853

e-ISSN 2249-4588

Keywords
auditinterferencerule
Classification
GJMBR-D Classification JEL Code: M42
K0
  • Submission ReceivedDecember 10, 2012
  • Peer Review Double Blind
    Handling Editor
  • Accepted January 1, 2013
  • Published January 15, 2013
Version of record

v1.2

Issue date
August 6, 2013

Language
English
Order Article Reprint
Experiance in AR

Explore published articles in an immersive Augmented Reality environment. Our platform converts research papers into interactive 3D books, allowing readers to view and interact with content using AR and VR compatible devices.

View in VR
Read in 3D

Your published article is automatically converted into a realistic 3D book. Flip through pages and read research papers in a more engaging and interactive format.

View in 3D
Article Matrices
Total Views: 1.4K
Total Downloads: 89
All Trends

Request Access

Please fill out the form below to request access to this research paper. Your request will be reviewed by the editorial or author team.
X

This is the heading

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

High-quality academic research articles on global topics and journals.

Limiting Auditors Defenses in Negligence Lawsuits: Recent Developments in the Audit Interference Rule

Stephen Blythe
Stephen Blythe Abu Dhabi University
  • Submission ReceivedDecember 10, 2012
  • Peer Review Double Blind
    Handling Editor
  • Accepted January 1, 2013
  • Published January 15, 2013