20
2. Other Colorado cases that also support this instruction include Hayden v. Perry, 110
Colo. 347, 351, 134 P.2d 212, 214 (1943) (“where one party to a transaction induces the other
party to enter it by willful misrepresentations, the representor cannot escape liability for his fraud
by claiming that the representee could have investigated the representations made and would
then have found that they were untrue”); Pattridge v. Youmans, 107 Colo. 122, 126, 109 P.2d
646, 648 (1941) (“‘However negligent the party may have been to whom the incorrect statement
has been made, yet that is a matter affording no ground of defense to the other.” (quoting Sellar,
2 Colo. at 545)); Bucci v. Pizza, 90 Colo. 30, 31, 6 P.2d 5, 5 (1931) (where parties were friends,
“[p]laintiff’s credulity and lack of greater diligence does not absolve defendant from the
consequences of his misrepresentations”); Masser v. Foxworthy, 86 Colo. 313, 281 P. 360
(1929) (plaintiff who was 65, ignorant, and chronic asthmatic had no duty to investigate
condition of property where defendant made false representations about it); Schtul v. Wilson, 83
Colo. 528, 266 P. 1112 (1928) (not error to deny instruction saying plaintiff had duty to
investigate); Colorado Mortgage Co. v. Wilson, 83 Colo. 254, 263 P. 406 (1928) (negligence of
old and inexperienced plaintiffs who failed to examine promissory notes no excuse for
defendant’s deceit); American National Bank of Denver v. Hammond, 25 Colo. 367, 371-72,
55 P. 1090, 1091 (1898) (“There was nothing in the transaction, nor does [plaintiff] appear to
have possessed any information, which would have aroused his suspicions, or cast doubt upon
the truth of the statements claimed to have been made . . . and he was therefore justified in
relying upon them.”), Zang v. Adams, 23 Colo. 408, 412, 48 P. 509, 511 (1897) (“Where a
willful wrong has been committed, courts are not keen to find an avenue of escape for the
wrongdoer, merely because the victim has been unsuspecting.”); Sears v. Hicklin, 13 Colo. 143,
21 P. 1022 (1889) (no duty where parties in a confidential relationship); Herefort v. Cramer, 7
Colo. 483, 4 P. 896 (1884) (no duty where information was peculiarly within the
misrepresentor’s knowledge); and Barfield v. Hall Realty, Inc., 232 P.3d 286 (Colo. App. 2010)
(agent acting as real estate “transaction broker” has no duty to investigate whether property could
be used as RV park or to verify accuracy of seller’s representations, and failure to do so could
not be basis for negligent misrepresentation or fraud claim).
3. The court stated as dictum in Sellar, 2 Colo. at 544: “When the means of knowledge
are at hand, and equally available to both parties, and the subject about which the representations
are made is open to their inspection, if the party to whom the representations are made does not
avail himself of these means and opportunities, he will not be heard to say that he has been
deceived.” Colorado cases have expressly or impliedly approved this rule, but not all have noted
that the dictum as originally stated was in reference to matters that were patent. See Colo. Coffee
Bean, LLC, 251 P.3d at 19 (publicly available and equally accessible store profit information
prevents a claim that nondisclosure of net losses at some company stores is unreasonable); see
also Vinton, 2012 CO 10, ¶ 17 (a recorded deed of title is precisely the kind of information that
is equally accessible); M.D.C./Wood, Inc. v. Mortimer, 866 P.2d at 1382 (where both parties
had equal access to information that would have led to true facts, reliance not justified);
Bassford v. Cook, 152 Colo. 136, 380 P.2d 907 (1963) (where rescission action is based on
innocent misrepresentation as opposed to a fraudulent one, and plaintiffs have been put on notice
by facts known to them, no relief if they were negligent in not making further inquiry);
Cherrington v. Woods, 132 Colo. 500, 290 P.2d 226 (1955) (recovery not allowed where
plaintiffs made partial inspection and information was immediately before them because notice
that excites attention, puts party on guard, and calls for inquiry, is sufficient notice for a