Opinion ID: 388125
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Negligent Mismanagement

Text: 34 Against B-E's claim that Hubly is liable for negligently mismanaging the affairs of General, Hubly contends: (1) that there is no cause of action for negligent mismanagement and (2) that the district court erred in instructing the jury on a gross negligence standard when B-E alleged only negligent mismanagement. Hubly urges that the issue of gross negligence was not tried with the express or implied consent of the parties. 35 In light of supporting authority from other jurisdictions and a lack of contrary authority in Ohio, the district court properly recognized a cause of action for grossly negligent mismanagement under the circumstances of this case. Whether an issue is tried with the express or implied consent of the parties is a matter within the trial court's discretion. 8 Because Hubly has shown neither an abuse of that discretion, nor prejudice resulting from the instruction on gross negligence, his contention cannot prevail. 9