Opinion ID: 567522
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Effect of directed verdict on conversion claim.

Text: 74 The district court granted Clark's motion for a directed verdict on the issue of conversion by the appellants. Clark also moved for a directed verdict on the issue of negligence. After hearing arguments, the court denied the motion. Clark argues that the district court should have ended the trial when it granted his motion for a directed verdict on the issue of conversion. Clark's argument assumes that Viall's amendment altered the facts of his conversion claim only, and did not assert a claim based on negligence. The amendment states: 75 The individual defendants are liable for the loss of plaintiff's silver for the following reasons: As corporate directors and/or officers of NACC, they had a duty to properly manage and supevise the affairs of the corporation so as to insure that the interests and property of NACC customers, such as plaintiff, were protected. Defendants breached this duty by failing to properly manage and supervise the affairs of the corporation. As a proximate result of defendants' nonfeasance and breach of this duty, plaintiff's property was lost and/or converted. 76 This allegation clearly states a claim for negligence and we find Clark's claim without merit. 77