John A. Artukovich & Sons, Inc. v. Reliance Truck Co.

John A. Artukovich & Sons, Inc. (Artukovich) (plaintiff) entered a lease agreement with the Ashton Company for Ashton’s use of a crane for construction work in Tucson, Arizona. The lease began on the first day the crane was used after the crane was shipped to Tempe, Arizona, and the lease term extended for nine months. The crane arrived in Tempe. Ashton’s agent, Reliance Truck Co. (Reliance) (defendant) dismantled the crane and prepared to transport it to Tucson. Prior to the Tucson trip, however, Reliance received word that a massive transformer needed to be installed in West Phoenix pursuant to Reliance’s previously entered contract with Arizona Public Service. Reliance wanted to use the crane to perform the contract. Reliance contacted Ashton, but Ashton told Reliance that Reliance needed to reach an agreement with Artukovich. Reliance then tried unsuccessfully to reach Artukovich to request permission. Without obtaining permission, Reliance used the crane to perform the job in West Phoenix and was paid $6,000 for completing the contract. Reliance then delivered the crane to Tucson for Ashton’s use. Artukovich sued Reliance to recover damages for Reliance’s unauthorized use of the crane under theories of conversion and implied contract. The trial court entered judgment for Artukovich in the amount of $6,956.69 for actual damages and $6,000 in punitive damages. Reliance appealed, challenging Artukovich’s ability to recover under the asserted legal theories. Reliance acknowledged that it was required to pay someone a reasonable rental value for use of the crane.