Prudential-Bache v. Bialkin
Case Date: 11/17/1992
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 92-1093
|
November 17, 1992 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ___________________ No. 92-1093 PRUDENTIAL-BACHE SECURITIES INC., Plaintiff, Appellee, v. ROBERT BIALKIN, Defendant, Appellant. __________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ___________________ Before Breyer, Chief Judge, ___________ Torruella and Selya, Circuit Judges. ______________ ___________________ Robert Bialkin on brief pro se. ______________ Gerald F. Rath, Michael J. Eisele and Bingham, Dana & Gould _______________ _________________ _____________________ on brief for appellee. __________________ __________________ Per Curiam. We have carefully reviewed the record __________ and find no merit in appellant's arguments. There was no error in the challenged evidentiary rulings for the reasons explained in Prudential's brief. The district court's findings are fully supported by the evidence and are not clearly erroneous. As for appellant's claims that Prudential was grossly negligent and that negligence should bar recovery, appellant is wrong. See Restatement (Second) of Torts 540 ___ (1976) ("The recipient of a fraudulent misrepresentation of fact is justified in relying upon its truth, although he might have ascertained the falsity of the representation had he made an investigation."); Restatement (Second) of Torts 545A (1976) (contributory negligence does not bar recovery for fraud). Affirmed. ________ |