Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Negligence / Applicant and Respondent were drivers involved in a collision on a rural highway / Police reporting indicated the Respondent was not travelling to the conditions and crossed the centre line / Respondent disputed liability / Applicant claimed $19,000.00, being the value of his vehicle, towing costs and loss of income / Held: Respondent liable in negligence for causing the collision/ Respondent would not have lost control and crossed the centre if she had been driving to the conditions / Compensation for vehicle price, towing, and loss income was reasonable  / Applicant was able to sell the wreck for $700 so that was deducted from the costs sought / Respondent ordered to pay $17,724.08 to Respondent / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Traffic Law / Applicant and Respondent’s vehicles were involved in a collision / Applicant and his insurer claimed that the Respondent caused the collision by failing to give way / Applicant sought damages of $10,829.57 / Held: Respondent had an obligation to give way to Applicant’s car and failed to do so, thereby causing the collision / Applicant’s driving did not cause the collision / Applicant and insurer proved that the amount claimed was reasonable for repair costs / Respondent must pay Applicant’s insurer $10,829.57 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Land Transport Act 1998 / Applicant claimed he was about to exit a roundabout at an intersection when the Respondent entered the intersection colliding with his vehicle / Respondent admitted the collision occurred but denied liability claiming she did not see the Applicant, probably because he did not have his headlights on / Applicant claimed the cost of repair of $2,303.57 / Held: collision occurred at dawn at a well-lit roundabout / Even if the Applicant did not have his lights on, the Respondent should have been able to see him / Damage was consistent with the description of the collision / Cost claimed for the repairs was reasonable / Respondent ordered to pay $2,303.57 to the Applicant’s insurer / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Applicant swerved onto footpath and embankment to avoid head-on collision after Respondent reversed from driveway into Applicant’s lane / Applicant claimed $3706.68 for vehicle repairs / Held: Respondent breached duty to give way when exiting driveway causing Applicant’s evasive action / Duty of care existed requiring driver exiting driveway to give way to vehicles on roadway / Respondent failed to comply with duty of care and created risk of collision / Evidence showed Applicant’s account consistent with photos and invoices, damage matched mounting kerb and embankment / Delay in repairs explained by insurer’s need to confirm responsible party / Repair cost reasonable as major damage was caused to wheels such that replacement was cheaper than repair invoices and photos supported claim / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $3706.68 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Respondent was performing construction work on a neighbouring property to the Applicant’s property / Applicant claimed that the Respondent dropped nails onto his driveway and that it was a nail from the site that became embedded into his vehicle causing a flat tyre / Applicant claimed $1033.85 for a replacement tyre / Respondent claimed the Applicant failed to prove the nail was from their construction site / Held: more likely than not that the flat tyre was caused by the nail from the neighbouring construction site / Failure to take preventive action was negligent / Negligence causing the flat tyre was not too remote / Same time of nail used on the site was discovered in the flat tyre / Respondent did not dispute the cost to repair the tyre / Respondent ordered to pay $1033.85 to the Applicant / Claim allowed.

Tort / Negligence / Applicant's vehicle collided with Respondent's vehicle which was part way through a righthand turn / Respondent denies liability on the basis that Applicant was driving too fast / Applicant's vehicle was written off / Applicant claimed $4,757.13 / Held: Respondent failed to take reasonable care because he turned right across Applicant's lane without giving way / Respondent failed to see Applicant / Applicant exceeded speed limit at time of collision / Respondent's liability is at 90% / Applicant's insurer not estopped from pursuing claim against Respondent / Claimed costs are reasonable / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant's insurer $4,281.42 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Applicant impacted Respondent's angus steers whilst driving / Applicant's vehicle was unrepairable / Applicant claimed $6,000 as estimated value of car pre-impact / Held: interference of an unknown third party most likely the reason for Respondent's gate being left open / Applicant did not provide evidence that the gate and fencing containing stock was of standard or quality insufficient for that purpose / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Traffic law / Applicant had stopped to turn right with Respondent driving towards Applicant in opposite lane / Head-on collision occurred and Applicant and witness said Respondent had veered into Applicant's lane / Applicant claimed $9075.51 for written off car and towing costs / Respondent counterclaimed for $17955 for repairs and towing costs / Held: more likely than not that Applicant remained in own lane and collision was caused by Respondent / Witness said Respondent's vehicle was coming towards Applicant's vehicle despite sufficient room in Respondent's own lane / Respondent had duty to not drive in way that causes damage to other vehicles or property / Respondent breached duty by causing damage to Applicant's car and was liable for reasonable costs of returning Applicant to position they would have been in if breach did not occur / Costs claimed were reasonable / Respondent to pay Applicant’s insurer $9075.51 / Claim allowed and counterclaim dismissed.

Negligence / Applicant parked his vehicle in a place designated for spectator while attending a show / On Applicant’s vehicle was deployed a swing around awning / Respondent moved his van into a space towards the rear of the Applicant’s vehicle / While moving his van the Respondent had to move past the Applicant’s awning /  Applicant alleged that while driving past, the roof rack on the Respondent’s van caught the awning ripping it and damaging a pole / Applicant’s insurer paid for the repair costs / Applicant’s insurer claimed for repayment / Dispute over whether the damage to the awning was caused by the Respondent or by a bystander / Held: Respondent was liable for the damage to the awning / Evidence indicated that awning was damaged when it caught on the roof rack / Respondent was in breach of his duty of care to ensure the way was clear before reversing his van past the Applicant’s awning / Claim amount was reasonable / Respondent ordered to pay $1,798.00 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Tort / Negligence / Applicant engaged by Respondent to house or pet sit / Applicant used Respondent's vehicle with permission / Vehicle had issues while driving / Applicant advised not to drive vehicle / Applicant claimed reimbursement for towing fees / Held: Respondent did not advise Applicant vehicle was 6 months overdue for service and was being monitored for mechanical faults / Applicant not negligent and not liable for replacement engine / Applicant entitled to 50% reimbursement for towing expense / Applicant not entitled to pet care services payment as contract was for unpaid house and pet care services / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant / Claim allowed in part.

Tort / Negligence / Applicant and Respondent were involved in a vehicle collision / Applicant and Respondent recalled conflicting versions of event / Applicant claimed cost of repair estimate plus towing and storage costs / Held: Respondent liable in negligence for collision as she was found guilty of careless driving at the District Court / No contributory negligence on Applicant's part / Respondent liable to pay remaining costs / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant's insurer $5976.41 / Claim allowed.

Building contracts / Negligence / Building Act 2004 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants entered residential building contract with Respondent for construction of a house / First Respondent subcontracted driveway and path construction to Second Respondent / Applicants noticed issues with concrete upon moving in / Independent report commissioned by First Respondent found issues with driveway and path / Applicants claimed $30,000 for cost of replacing driveway and path / First Respondent counterclaimed a contribution of $20,000 from Second Respondent / Held: driveway, path and slab did not meet statutory warrants implied in residential building contracts / Respondents accepted  that statutory warranties not met and replacements for driveway, path and slab required / Respondents not liable for replacement cost of vehicle crossing as issues were largely aesthetic but liable for cost of lost amenity in respect of the crossing / Second Respondent liable to Applicants in negligence for…

Negligence / Applicant and Respondent involved in vehicle collision / Applicant claimed vehicle's pre-accident value plus towing, storage and assessment costs less salvage cost / Respondent counter-claimed repairs to his vehicle / Held: Respondent caused collision by failing to make sure the road was clear before pulling out on the road / Applicant not liable to pay damages to Respondent's vehicle / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant's insurer $5,262.25 / Counter-claim dismissed / Claim allowed.