Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Negligence / Respondent’s vehicle collided with Applicant, damaging his e-Scooter / Applicant claimed $430 for repairs, $240 for temporary transport costs, $955.50 for filing fee and hearing attendance costs, and $69.50 for medical costs / Held: Respondent failed to give way, was negligent / Applicant entitled to repair costs and some costs for alternate transport while waiting for repairs / Circumstances not met for costs award relating to filing fee or time spent attending hearing / Personal injury outside Tribunal’s jurisdiction, claim for medical costs struck out / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $510 / Claim allowed in part.

Negligence / Land Transport (Road User) Rules 2004 / Applicant and Respondent were involved in a car collision / Applicant alleged he pulled up behind Respondent when the Respondent suddenly reversed into him / Applicant and his insurer claimed damages of $10964.91 / Respondent argued he had no option but to reverse as he was threatened by the driver in front of him / Held: combination of other driver’s intimidating driving and threats to Respondent would have made an ordinary person fear for themselves and their physical safety / Respondent’s reaction to the other driver reversing towards his vehicle would have created a real concern for his safety / Respondent not liable for damage to Applicant’s vehicle / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Applicant and Respondent involved in collision / Respondent's insurer holding Applicant liable for $8,182.84 vehicle repair costs / Applicant claimed declaration of non-liability against Respondent / Held: if Respondent had not swerved, Applicant would have likely suffered more serious consequences / Respondent's insurer did not establish claimed amount was most cost-effective repair cost / Fifteen percent deducted from claimed amount / Applicant ordered to pay Respondent's insurer $7,000 / Claim allowed in part.

Negligence / Applicant was driving his truck when he struck a cattle beast /  Animal died and Applicant’s truck was extensively damaged / Applicant filed claim against Respondent, owner of a nearby farm / Applicant filed $10,000 claim for the loss of his vehicle / Held: unable to establish who owned the animal / Evidence indicated Applicant’s vehicle was damaged as a result of collision with the animal / Respondent had a duty of care to ensure all the cattle grazing on his property were not at risk of escaping onto public roads and causing harm or damage to others / Respondent breached his duty of care to road users / Applicant entitled to compensation for damage to his vehicle / Respondent ordered to pay $9,000 to the Applicant, cost of vehicle minus $1,000 for his one month of ownership / Claim granted.

Negligence / Applicant hit pothole in vehicle causing damage to a tyre / Applicant contacted Respondent who sent contractors to fix pothole within 75 minutes / Applicant claimed Respondent knew about the pothole and failed to warn motorists / Applicant claimed compensation for loss that his insurer has not covered / Respondent claimed they had no previous knowledge of the pothole / Held: if the Respondent did owe motorists a duty of care in this instance, then it had not breached that duty as it responded quickly to fix the issue / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Respondent kicked in panels on Applicant’s car / Respondent also filled Applicant's petrol vehicle up with diesel / Applicant claimed compensation for the costs of repairing the petrol tank and panels / Applicant's car subsequently stolen / Held: Applicant's car was stolen and there is therefore no hope of it ever being repaired / It would be artificial to award Applicant compensation for repairs which will never be done / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Applicant was parked in his car on the side of the road when he was hit by another car / Respondent then drove past and parked ahead of the Applicant / Applicant took a video of the damage to his own vehicle and noted damage on the Respondent's car / Respondent denied he hit the Applicant's car / Respondent also heard a crash and saw a white car speed past / Respondent stated there was no damage to his vehicle / Respondent claimed he pulled over as a witness, not because he was liable / Held: onus was on the Applicant to prove on the balance of probabilities that the damage was caused in the manner he described / Claim not proven to the required standard / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Applicant was driving her car down a street on a day where there was high wind / A branch from Applicant’s tree fell and hit the bonnet of the Respondent’s car / The vehicle was damaged in the incident and since written off / Applicant claims $4,915 for the car repair and transport costs / Held: Respondent’s were negligent as the tree falling was reasonably foreseeable / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay applicant $3,300.

Tort / Negligence / Bailment / Applicant had driven their motorcycle to complete a compliance check / vehicle testing company parked applicant’s motorcycle in a storage area for motorcycles / Respondent hit applicant’s motorcycle with his vehicle while exiting testing station / motorcycle was taken to third party to get repairs / Applicant claims cost of repairs from respondent and vehicle testing company / Held: vehicle testing company liable as they had complete control over the storage location of Applicant’s motorcycle / Respondent did not take proper care when exiting the vehicle testing centre / vehicle testing company and Respondent to pay Applicant’s insurer $4,840.74 / Claim upheld.

Complaint of misconduct or gross negligence against repossession agent - complaints obstructed licence holder in lawful repossession of vehicle - complaint dismissed.

Negligence /  Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Applicant and Respondent were drivers in a vehicle collision / Both parties accepted that they did not see the other car until impact / Applicant brought a claim of $2,622.00 against Respondent / Whether Respondent caused the collision / If so, did Applicant contribute to the collision  / If so, what was the remedy / Held: Respondent was responsible (at least) in part for the collision / Respondent had an express duty to make sure the road was clear / Respondent did not see the Applicant pull out until it was too late / Applicant had a duty to make sure the road was clear before pulling out onto the road / Taken into account that the Applicant did not see the Respondent’s car until she heard the screech of brakes / Respondent contributed to the collision / Sum that Respondent is ordered to pay reduced by a third to reflect Applicant’s contribution / Applicant ordered to pay Respondent $1,748.00 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Applicant and Respondent were drivers in a vehicle collision / Collision occurred when Respondent was passing a truck and Applicant exited driveway onto road / Applicant claimed $5,000 from Respondent / Respondent’s insurer counter-claimed $8,317.85 from Applicant / Which party caused the collision / Whether Respondent contributed to the collision / Whether costs claimed reasonable / Held: it is more likely than not that Respondent caused collision / Applicant failed to give way to a vehicle on the roadway when he exited the driveway in breach of legislation / Respondent created situation with risk / Applicant beared greater responsibility and respective liability assessed as 80:20 / Costs accepted and proved reasonable / Applicant liable for 80% of Respondent’s loss / Applicant ordered to pay $4,312.13 to Respondent / Claim and counter-claim allowed