Which of the Following Was the Result on Appeal in the Case

Which of the following was the result on appeal in the Case Opener in which the plaintiff optometrist sued the defending bank for cashing over 500 checks that his receptionist fraudulently embezzled through forging his signature?

A) Because both the plaintiff and the bank were found negligent, the plaintiff was denied recovery.
B) Because only the bank was found negligent, the plaintiff was denied recovery.
C) Because both the plaintiff and the bank were found negligent, the plaintiff recovered only 50% of his losses.
D) Because only the bank was found negligent, the plaintiff was entitled to recover the value of the checks.
E) Based on public policy, the plaintiff was denied recovery although no negligence was found on the part of either party.