Wendy Wanderer Most states have an 'attractive nuisance' clause, which stipulates that homeowners must ensure that their property does not contain 'attractive nuisances' that can encourage children to engage in dangerous behaviors. But an attractive nuisance is usually thought to be a swimming pool that is not fenced in vs. general rubbish. Prior to 2001 Ohio, Vermont, and Maryland were the only states without some version of the "attractive nuisance" doctrine" (Eckner 2013). However, in 2001, the "Ohio Court adopted the Second Restatement's version of the 'attractive nuisance' doctrine -- i.e. An owner of land is liable for the death or injury of a trespassing child, limited by the factors of foreseeability and reasonable care The Court in fact went a step further and even extended the doctrine to adult rescuers injured or killed while attempting" to rescue the child (Eckner 2013).

In this case, Paul Pedestrian was not a rescuer although he might argue that Wendy's injuries were the proximate cause of his own injuries. Ohio and Texas do allow proximate cause suits, so long as the plaintiff's actions did not cause his or her injuries: the case would be tried in Ohio, given its location, regardless of where Paul resides (Proximate cause, 2012). If Wendy sued, it would also be a state case, given that it involves an Ohio-specific law. Wendy would sue Dirt for compensatory damages...

What standard of care applies to Able & Henderson's accounting work for Hambones, Inc.
The standard of care that is applicable is that the "the accountant performed his audit functions in a manner that would have revealed to an ordinary prudent investor, who examined the accountant's audits or other financial statements, a reasonably accurate reflection of the financial risks such an investor presently bears or might bear in the future if he invested in the audited endeavor" (Zamczyk & Delinks 2007).

b. Does Able & Henderson face any negligence liability to First State Bank or Sauce Supply in a state that has adopted the Ultramares rule?

According to the Ultramares rule, "an accountant only owes a duty of care to those persons for whose primary benefit the accountant's statements were intended, namely: persons in privity with the accountant; and third parties whose relationship with the accountant was so close as to approach that of privity" which is not the case with either the bank or Sauce Supply (Accountant's duty of care, 2013).

c. In a state that has adopted the restatement rule?

The restatement rule extends Ultramares "holding that accountants…