Court Opinion

ID: 9929890
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-05 17:04:18.543493+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:58:10.002954
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                         Feb 05 2024, 9:29 am

                                                                              CLERK
                                                                         Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                            Court of Appeals
                                                                              and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                     ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Paul L. Jefferson                                          Collin M. Mockbee
McNeelyLaw LLP                                             Christopher J. Mueller
Indianapolis, Indiana                                      Lewis Wagner LLP
                                                           Indianapolis, Indiana

                                            IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Estate of Gerald Everett                                   February 5, 2024
Goldsberry,                                                Court of Appeals Case No.
Appellant-Defendant,                                       23A-MI-1987
                                                           Appeal from the Morgan Superior
        v.                                                 Court
                                                           The Honorable Brian H. Williams,
Drake Air, LLC, by its member                              Judge
Brent L. Drake,                                            Trial Court Cause No.
Appellee-Plaintiff.                                        55D02-2208-MI-1358

                                Opinion by Judge Mathias
                           Judges Tavitas and Weissmann concur.

Mathias, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-MI-1987 | February 5, 2024                             Page 1 of 9
[1]   The Estate of Gerald Everett Goldsberry (“the Estate”) appeals the trial court’s

      judgment for Drake Air, LLC, by its member Brent L. Drake (“Drake Air”),

      following a bench trial. The Estate raises two issues for our review, which we

      restate as follows:

              1. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law when it
              concluded that a bailment existed even though a third party had
              access to the bailed property.

              2. Whether the trial court clearly erred when it concluded that
              the Estate had not sufficiently demonstrated that the damage to
              the bailed property was not the fault of the Estate.

[2]   We affirm.

      Facts and Procedural History
[3]   In 2020, Drake Air owned a Brantly B-2B helicopter. Brantly helicopters are no

      longer manufactured, and Drake Air engaged Gerald Goldsberry in Mooresville

      to service the helicopter. Goldsberry was known as “Mr. Brantly” because “he

      had all of the parts for Brantly helicopters in the country.” Tr. Vol. 2, p. 23. On

      several occasions, Goldsberry’s invoices to Drake Air stated that the labor for

      the requested services on the helicopter had been performed by Goldsberry, Bill

      Myrtle, or Brad Huddle. Ex. Vol. 1, pp. 4-6. Myrtle and Huddle were not paid

      employees of Goldsberry and they did not see themselves as agents of

      Goldsberry; rather, they viewed their work with Goldsberry on Brantly

      helicopters as simply part of their friendship with Goldsberry.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-MI-1987 | February 5, 2024       Page 2 of 9
[4]   In July, Drake Air delivered the helicopter to Goldsberry for routine

      maintenance. The helicopter was in airworthy condition upon delivery.

      Goldsberry accepted the delivery of the helicopter to perform the requested

      maintenance. Myrtle performed the maintenance, and Huddle inspected the

      helicopter following the maintenance.

[5]   Thereafter, Goldsberry performed a test flight of the helicopter. During that

      flight, the engine quit and the helicopter crashed. Myrtle rushed to the scene but

      struggled to extract Goldsberry from the wreckage due to the heat of the

      resultant fire. Myrtle eventually succeeded in extracting Goldsberry, and

      Goldsberry stated that he had “lost power.” Tr. Vol. 2, p. 42. Goldsberry died

      shortly afterward. An ensuing inspection by the National Transportation Safety

      Board (“NTSB”) was unable to determine the cause of the crash.

[6]   In August 2022, Drake Air filed a complaint against the Estate for the loss of

      the helicopter. Following a bench trial, the trial court found and concluded in

      relevant part as follows:

              40. [Drake Air] delivered the [h]elicopter in good operating
              condition . . . to [Goldsberry’s] shop. It is undisputed that the
              [h]elicopter was not returned . . . as [it] was destroyed in the
              crash. Accordingly, [under the law for mutual benefit bailments,
              Drake Air] has made a prima facie case of negligence and the
              burden shifts to the Estate to prove [Goldsberry] was not
              negligent.

                                                   ***

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-MI-1987 | February 5, 2024        Page 3 of 9
              43. There is no probative evidence addressing whether
              [Goldsberry] did or did not negligently inspect or perform
              maintenance upon the [h]elicopter. . . . [N]o probative evidence
              as to the particulars of his activity and the mechanical tasks
              performed on the helicopter has been provided by either party.

              44. Without this evidence showing [Goldsberry] did not
              negligently inspect or perform mechanical tasks on the
              [h]elicopter, the Estate failed to overcome its burden.

              45. This case leaves [the] court with the relevant facts as to
              [Goldsberry’s] actions regarding the helicopter that are
              unfortunately unknowable, and a burden of proof upon the
              Defendant that demands them[] if the Defendant is to avoid
              liability. Accordingly, [Drake Air] is entitled to damages equal to
              the value of the [h]elicopter.

      Appellant’s App. Vol. 2, pp. 17-18. The court then found the value of the

      helicopter at the time of the crash to have been $50,000, and it entered

      judgment for Drake Air accordingly.

[7]   This appeal ensued.

      Standard of Review
[8]   The Estate appeals the trial court’s findings and conclusions following a bench

      trial. Our standard of review in such appeals is well established:

              We may not set aside the findings or judgment unless they are
              clearly erroneous. In our review, we first consider whether the
              evidence supports the factual findings. Second, we consider
              whether the findings support the judgment. Findings are clearly
              erroneous only when the record contains no facts to support

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-MI-1987 | February 5, 2024          Page 4 of 9
              them either directly or by inference. A judgment is clearly
              erroneous if it relies on an incorrect legal standard. We give due
              regard to the trial court’s ability to assess the credibility of
              witnesses. While we defer substantially to findings of fact, we do
              not defer to conclusions of law. We do not reweigh the evidence;
              rather we consider the evidence most favorable to the judgment
              with all reasonable inferences drawn in favor of the judgment.

      State v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 51 N.E.3d 150, 158 (Ind. 2016) (citations and

      quotation marks omitted).

      1. Neither Myrtle’s nor Huddle’s access to the helicopter on
      the day of the crash destroyed the bailment.
[9]   On appeal, the Estate first contends that the trial court erred as a matter of law

      in concluding that a bailment existed between Drake Air and Goldsberry

      because two other people, namely, Myrtle and Huddle, had access to the

      helicopter on the day of the crash. As we have explained:

              A bailment arises when (1) personal property belonging to a
              bailor is delivered into the exclusive possession of the bailee, and
              (2) the property is accepted by the bailee. For delivery to occur,
              there must be a full transfer of the property, either actually or
              constructively, to the sole custody of the bailee such as to exclude
              both the owner of the property and others. Acceptance of the property
              by the bailee may arise from an express contract or from
              circumstances that imply such a contract.

              If a bailment is found to exist, the bailee in possession of the
              bailed property must exercise the degree of care commensurate
              with the benefit derived from the arrangement. In a mutual
              benefit bailment, where a bailment exists for both the bailor’s and
              bailee’s benefit, the bailee must exercise a duty of ordinary care.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-MI-1987 | February 5, 2024            Page 5 of 9
               A showing by the bailor that the items were in good condition
               and were either returned in a damaged condition or not returned
               at all creates an inference that the bailee has failed to exercise the
               appropriate degree of care. The burden then shifts to the bailee to
               demonstrate that the loss, damage, or theft was not his fault.

       Nick’s Packing Servs., Inc. v. Chaney, 181 N.E.3d 1025, 1028-29 (Ind. Ct. App.

       2021) (emphasis added; citations omitted). Seizing on the italicized language

       above, the Estate asserts that both Myrtle and Huddle had access to the

       helicopter, and, as such, there could be no bailment between Drake Air and

       Goldsberry.

[10]   On this record, we cannot agree with the Estate. A bailment is in the nature of a

       contract between the bailor and the bailee. See id. A bailor entrusts bailed

       property to a bailee “for a specific purpose,” and, “when the purpose is

       accomplished[,] the bailee will return the property to the bailor.” Pittman v.

       Pittman, 717 N.E.2d 627, 631 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). And, while in custody of

       the bailed property, the bailee must “exercise the degree of care commensurate

       with” the purpose of the bailment. Nick’s Packing Servs., Inc., 181 N.E.3d at

       1028-29.

[11]   Thus, as other jurisdictions have made more explicit, the requirement that the

       bailee take custody of the bailed property to the exclusion of “others”

               does not mean that . . . the bailee must be the only one who has
               access to the property. The bailee may allow others to access the
               property without destroying the bailment. The requirement is only
               that the bailee have the right to exclude all persons not covered by the
               agreement and to control the property.
       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-MI-1987 | February 5, 2024               Page 6 of 9
       Cornia v. Wilcox, 898 P.2d 1379, 1384 (Utah 1995) (quotation and original

       emphases omitted) (citing 8 Am. Jur. 2d Bailments § 78 (1980)); see also NSK

       Corp. v. Oberle & Assocs., Inc., No. 1:09-cv-52-SEB-MJD, 2011 WL 1988809, at

       *3 (S.D. Ind. May 20, 2011) (concluding that a bailment existed under Indiana

       law because the bailee “clearly had the right to exclude others . . . and thus had

       exclusive possession” of the bailed property) (emphasis added).

[12]   Here, the record is clear that Myrtle’s and Huddle’s access to the helicopter on

       Goldsberry’s premises on the day of the crash was covered by the agreement

       between Drake Air and Goldsberry. The agreement between Drake Air and

       Goldsberry was for Goldsberry to take custody of the helicopter to perform

       routine maintenance on it. On prior occasions where Drake Air had delivered

       the helicopter to Goldsberry for service, Goldsberry had invoiced Drake Air for

       labor performed by both Myrtle and Huddle. And, on the day of the crash,

       Myrtle and Huddle again had access to the helicopter and provided labor

       toward its maintenance. Although the Estate argues that Myrtle and Huddle

       were not employees or agents of Goldsberry, that argument is beside the point.

       The question is whether Drake Air and Goldsberry contemplated that the

       bailment would include others such as Myrtle and Huddle, and the prior history

       between Drake Air and Goldsberry, along with the nature of this particular

       bailment being one for the service of a vehicle, makes clear that they did.

[13]   Accordingly, we hold that the trial court correctly concluded that Myrtle’s and

       Huddle’s access to the helicopter on the day of the crash did not destroy the

       bailment between Drake Air and Goldsberry.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-MI-1987 | February 5, 2024      Page 7 of 9
       2. The trial court did not err when it concluded that the Estate
       failed to demonstrate that the loss of the helicopter was not
       Goldsberry’s fault.
[14]   The Estate also challenges the trial court’s conclusion that the Estate failed to

       meet its burden to demonstrate that the loss of the helicopter was not

       Goldsberry’s fault. Again, once the bailor demonstrates that the bailed property

       was delivered in good condition but then not returned by the bailee, which

       Drake Air did here, the burden “shifts to the bailee to demonstrate that the loss,

       damage, or theft was not his fault.” Nick’s Packing Servs., Inc., 181 N.E.3d at

       1028-29.

[15]   The Estate argues that the trial court erred as a matter of law here when the

       court found that the Estate had not presented any “probative evidence”

       regarding whether the maintenance or inspection of the helicopter were

       negligently performed. Appellant’s App. Vol. 2, p. 18. The Estate asserts that it

       did present probative evidence, namely, Myrtle’s and Huddle’s representations

       that the helicopter was airworthy prior to Goldsberry’s test flight, as well as the

       NTSB’s inability to identify a cause of the crash after an investigation.

       Accordingly, the Estate continues, the trial court should have shifted the burden

       of proof back to Drake Air to establish the Estate’s liability.

[16]   The trial court’s full finding here is as follows:

               43. There is no probative evidence addressing whether
               [Goldsberry] did or did not negligently inspect or perform
               maintenance upon the [h]elicopter. . . . [N]o probative evidence

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-MI-1987 | February 5, 2024        Page 8 of 9
               as to the particulars of his activity and the mechanical tasks
               performed on the helicopter has been provided by either party.

       Id. Contrary to the Estate’s reading, we interpret the whole of that finding to be

       that the trial court found Myrtle’s and Huddle’s generic assertions of their own

       work and the helicopter’s airworthiness to not be persuasive. And that

       assessment was well within the trial court’s discretion.

[17]   Further, the trial court’s finding that the reason for the crash was an engine

       failure following the maintenance of the helicopter is supported by the record.

       Myrtle testified that, following his maintenance of the helicopter and Huddle’s

       inspection, the helicopter’s engine “quit” during Goldsberry’s test flight. He

       also testified that, immediately after the crash, Goldsberry stated that he had

       “lost power.” Tr. Vol. 2, pp. 41-42. The evidence before the trial court supports

       its conclusion that the helicopter went from being an airworthy vehicle at the

       time Drake Air delivered it to not being an airworthy vehicle while it was in

       Goldsberry’s possession and control. The Estate’s arguments to the contrary on

       this issue are merely requests for this Court to reweigh the evidence, which we

       will not do.

       Conclusion
[18]   For all of these reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

[19]   Affirmed.

       Tavitas, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-MI-1987 | February 5, 2024      Page 9 of 9