# Hocking Conservancy District v. Dodson-Lindblom Associates, Inc.

> Ohio Supreme Court · May 14, 1980 · 62 Ohio St. 2d 195

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6756860

## Case

- **Full name:** Hocking Conservancy District v. Dodson-Lindblom Associates, Inc.
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 14, 1980
- **Citations:** 62 Ohio St. 2d 195; 16 Ohio Op. 3d 217; 404 N.E.2d 164; 1980 Ohio LEXIS 718
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Holmes
- **Judges:** Brown, Celebrezze, Herbert, Holmes, Kerns, Locher, Second, Sweeney
- **Cited by:** 29 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6756860

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that engineering was not one of the traditional professions at common law and, accordingly, not subject to the malpractice statute of limitations

## Opinion text

Holmes, J., dissenting.
I have had a great deal of reservation in accepting the principle that we must continue the more limited common law definition of “malpractice.” I was in agreement with the panel of the Tenth District Court of Appeals when it extended the one-year statute of limitations to accountants upon the basis that such professionals exercise independent judgment, as do physicians and attorneys.
A number of appellate decisions have held the practice of *199 dentistry to fall within the orbit of the statute of limitations pertaining to malpractice. See, e.g., Cox v. Cartwright (1953), 96 Ohio App. 245 ; Cook v. Yager (1968), 13 Ohio App. 2d 1 . I agree with this line of cases.
It would also seem to be reasonable to extend the one-year limitation to the profession of engineering, where in the functions of such profession there is usually to be found the exercise of a high degree of independent judgment. The majority herein not seeing fit to go further than what is specifically provided for by statute, and that which has been included within the common law definition of “malpractice,” I must dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6756860. Public record. Not legal advice.