Tammy Flournoy v. Brandon Arnold
2024-CA-1131
Ky. Ct. App.Aug 15, 2025Background
- Tammy Flournoy’s car, a 2007 Dodge Charger, was damaged in a hit-and-run accident and brought to her cousin Brandon Arnold’s body shop for repairs in August 2022.
- Flournoy paid Arnold for the repairs using insurance proceeds, sent via Cash App.
- Over several months, Flournoy repeatedly contacted Arnold to inquire about her vehicle's status and eventually requested its return, repaired or not.
- Arnold later informed Flournoy that her car had been stolen from a third-party detailing shop, where an employee had been robbed and tied up.
- Flournoy, representing herself, sued Arnold for negligence under a bailment theory; Arnold claimed Flournoy authorized the transfer to the detailer.
- The trial court ruled in Arnold’s favor, finding no proof of his negligence, and denied Flournoy the opportunity for cross-examination, leading to this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bailment created and loss of vehicle | Car was delivered, not returned; Arnold responsible for loss | Loss not due to his negligence and Flournoy authorized car’s transfer | Circuit court correctly found bailment created; but failed to resolve authorization issue |
| Burden of proof in bailment for lost goods | Arnold must prove loss was not his negligence | Arnold satisfied burden by showing theft was from third party | Arnold did not meet burden; court failed to make required findings |
| Authorization for transfer to detail shop | Never authorized or knew transfer; Arnold strictly liable if exceeded authority | Flournoy knew and approved transfer to detail shop | Circuit court erred by not deciding if transfer was authorized |
| Right to procedural fairness (cross-examination) | Denied ability to cross-examine; due process failure | Not addressed | Error—procedural fairness requires such opportunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Webb v. McDaniels, 205 S.W.2d 511 (Ky. 1947) (burden shifts to bailee to show loss was not due to negligence once bailor shows delivery and failure to return)
- Threlkeld v. Breaux Ballard, Inc., 177 S.W.2d 157 (Ky. 1944) (bailee strictly liable if property dealt with outside bailor’s instructions)
- Family Trust Found. of Ky., Inc. v. Horse Racing Comm’n, 620 S.W.3d 595 (Ky. 2020) (bench trial findings standard of review)
- Barber v. Bradley, 505 S.W.3d 749 (Ky. 2016) (appellate review of legal conclusions from bench trial is de novo)