Court Opinion

ID: 2961590
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 20:45:06.353311+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:58.290541
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          November 17, 1992     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                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.                 ________