Plaintiff widow appealed an order from the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which entered an adverse judgment in a nonjury trial, in an action for alleged malpractice against defendant accountants.

 

Plaintiff widow employed defendant accountants to prepare federal and state income tax returns, income tax estimates, and to do related accounting work as requested. Plaintiff later brought an action against defendants, seeking damages for malpractice by defendants. A trial court entered an adverse judgment, and plaintiff appealed. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment. Drug Charges includes the manufacturing, cultivation, trafficking, distribution and possession of these substances. The court deemed it unnecessary to consider the evidence upon which the trial court made its findings. In view of the fact that defendants had no duty under the circumstances to inquire into the effect of a resolution with a publishing company, or to act otherwise than they did, the court found that it was futile to inquire into what could have been the situation had the facts in the case been otherwise. In view of the trial court's findings on plaintiff's failure to object to a withholding, the court deemed it unnecessary to consider the other questions raised by plaintiff. Nor did the court deem it necessary to discuss defendants' contention that the action was barred by the statute of limitations, a matter which the trial court did not include in its conclusions of law.

 

The court affirmed a trial court's adverse judgment in plaintiff widow's malpractice action against defendant accountants because it was unnecessary to consider the evidence upon which the trial court made its findings where defendants had no duty to inquire into the effect of a resolution or to act otherwise than they did, and it was futile to inquire into what could have been the situation had the facts in the case been otherwise.