Estate of Gerald Everett Goldsberry v. Drake Air, LLC, by its member Brent L. Drake ( 2024 )

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