Opinion ID: 567522
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Liability of appellants.

Text: 49 Appellants next argue that even if they could be liable as a matter of law, there is not substantial evidence to support the verdict. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as reasonable minds might accept as adequate to support a conclusion even if it is possible to draw two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence. Landes Constr., 833 F.2d at 1371. 50 1. Appellant Clark. 51 Clark was Vice-President, Secretary, and Treasurer of NACC from 1975 until October 2, 1981. 1 After this date he continued as a director until the corporation's bankruptcy and as a consultant for the firm under the same employment terms until the end of 1981. Clark was in charge of the vault where the metal was stored and responsible for the documentation involved in the storage of the metal. Clark was also responsible for trading, accounting, back office, security, shipping and receiving, and banking until September 1979. At that time he became the head trader responsible for the matching of buy and sell orders. The jury also viewed a letter from NACC's President stating Clark's responsibilities included Responding personally to or delegating to a member of your department the proper handling of physical product needs. Given Clark's extensive responsibilities regarding the storage of clients' metals at NACC, the jury could reasonably conclude that Clark negligently failed to supervise or manage the operations of NACC and his negligence was the proximate cause of her loss. 52 2. Appellant Hutchins. 53 Hutchins was an original incorporator, shareholder, and director of NACC. During his five years as a director he attended two or three board of directors meetings. Hutchins could recall very little of the substance of these meetings and knew nothing about the Hold Box. When asked if he had any knowledge of how NAC [sic] was doing business, insofar as transactions such as Mrs. Viall's was concerned, Hutchins replied, No. He testified that he was never informed about any financial problems the corporation was having prior to the bankruptcy filing, and that he made no investigation or asked any questions to determine if there were any financial problems at NACC. 54 His involvement in the corporation appears to extend to these few meetings and having lunch with Unkefer where they spent an hour or two in general discussion. He recalls no discussions regarding possible safeguards to make certain that customers' precious metals were being segregated, earmarked, and properly stored for them. When asked if he ever ma[d]e any independent investigation as to what methods were being used to check in and out customers' property into the vault, Hutchins replied 55 No, not exactly as you describe it. But I do remember one discussion where I asked what the security was in that vault, and Mr. Unkefer told me. And I suggested there might be more security, twenty-four hour security. 56 There is substantial evidence for the jury to conclude that Hutchins' failure to manage or even understand NACC's system of holding its clients' metals was negligent toward those clients and constituted a proximate cause of Viall's loss. 57