Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Negligence / Land Transport (Road User) Rules 2004 / Applicant and Respondent were drivers in vehicle collision / Respondent entered blocked traffic light intersection, caught in middle of intersection when their light turned red / Applicant entered intersection when their light turned green / Respondent pulled forward at same time, hit Applicant’s car / Applicant and applicant’s insurer claim cost of repairing car, $5,593.94 / Whether Respondent was negligent / Held: Both drivers at fault / Respondent entered intersection unlawfully, r 4.5(2) / Applicant negligently failed to check intersection was clear / Respondent liable for 40% of repair cost / Claim allowed in part, Respondent ordered to pay $2,237.56 to Applicant’s insurer.

Negligence / Whether Respondent negligently caused damage to Applicant’s vehicle / Applicant and Respondent were drivers in a minor motor vehicle collision / Respondent was reversing down a driveway when Applicant was driving along road / Parties dispute whether collision occurred on the road or on the driveway / Applicant’s insurer claims $4781.78 being the cost of repair to their vehicle / Held: collision occurred on driveway as Applicant moved off road to avoid the witness’ vehicle / Respondent was entitled to reverse down driveway, and therefore did not act negligently / Claim dismissed

Negligence / Animals Law Reform Act 1989 / Applicant collided with a herd of cows when driving on a rural road / Second Respondent acknowledged that a farm gate was damaged / Applicant claimed he suffered loss because his vehicle carried finance over and above market value of vehicle / Whether Second Respondent acted with a standard of care expected of a reasonable farmer / Whether Applicant’s loss was foreseeable / Held: Second Respondent did not act with a standard of care expected of a reasonable farmer / Applicant suffered a loss caused by a breach by Second Respondent / Applicant entitled to damages to put him back to the position prior to collision / Ordinary person would not expect to pay for finance above the value of the vehicle / Applicant not proved that he suffered a loss in terms of finance / Applicant’s insurance considered losses/ If insurance had not covered losses than Second Respondent would be liable / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Applicant and respondent were drivers involved in collision / Applicant and insurance company claim for loss after vehicle deemed uneconomic to repair / Respondent counter claims for repairs to vehicle / Held: Respondent pulled out from stationary position / Applicant swerved to avoid him / Respondent breached duty of care by failing to give way / Respondent fully liable / Claim allowed, respondent liable to pay sum to applicant’s insurer

Negligence / Collision between Applicant’s and Respondent’s vehicles / Respondent was a driving instructor and the Second Respondent was driving his car as part of her driving lesson / Applicant and his insurer claim the cost of repairing the Applicant’s car of $3,883.78 / Respondent counterclaims the costs of repair to his car / Whether the parties reached a binding settlement agreement / Whether Second Respondent gave way / Whether Respondent negligent in failing to provide adequate supervision / Whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the Applicant / What sum should be paid between the parties / Held: Respondent offered to get Applicant’s car repaired / Applicant’s response did not constitute a binding settlement merely negotiations / Applicant was under no obligation to continue with the negotiations and was free to decide to proceed through his insurer / Respondent admitted negligence / Respondent was on the phone at the time of the crash / High level of respo…

Tort / Negligence / Respondent was getting into her car when a gust of wind blew her car door into the door of a vehicle owned by Applicant, causing damage / Applicant and its insurer claim the cost of repairs to the vehicle of $4,923.07, including uninsured losses of $500 / Held: no contributory negligence in parking next to Respondent’s vehicle / Applicant entitled to recover the actual cost of the repairs / Claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4,923.07.

Negligence / motor vehicle collision / Applicant was riding motor scooter when a vehicle turned right across her path / Applicant claims losses from damage to scooter that was uneconomic to repair / Respondent denies being the driver of the car and knew nothing about the collision before receiving notice of proceedings / Held: on balance of probabilities, Respondent was the driver of the vehicle / Respondent failed to check that all lanes were clear before turning right / Respondent liable for reasonable losses / claim allowed, Respondent to pay Applicant $3,554 in replacement costs .

Insurance / negligence / three-car collision / Applicant stopped behind third-party vehicle / Respondent drove into back of Applicant’s vehicle causing Applicant to collide with vehicle in front / Applicant claiming $15,000 for damage to front and back of vehicle / Respondent claimed Applicant had already crashed into rear of front vehicle before Respondent hit from behind / Respondent argues that full frontal damage attributable to first impact / Held: Respondent caused at least $15,000 worth of damage even if two separate impacts were not proven / Respondent to pay $15,000 / claim allowed

Negligence / Applicant involved in car crash / applicant claimed crash caused by fuel spill & respondents responsible for not blocking road & cleaning it up promptly / alleged further damage caused to car when unloading it from respondent’s tow truck / applicant claimed damages  for damage to car, consequential losses & costs / whether respondents negligent, & if so , what sum payable / Held: respondents had a duty of care to take adequate precautions to prevent damage to other vehicles & respond promptly / no evidence respondent did not respond promptly / response time reasonable in the circumstances / resondents not lible for applicant’s crash / insufficient evidence respondent negligent in handling vehicle causing further damage / claim dismissed

Negligence / Breach of duty of care / Applicant and Respondent were drivers in a motor vehicle collision / Respondent’s vehicle crossed the centre line, crashing into Applicant’s oncoming vehicle / Serious Crash Unit report found the collision was caused by the separation of the left rear wheel from the Applicant’s vehicle, leading to loss of control of the vehicle / Applicant changed the wheel 7 days before the crash, report suggested wheel was over-torqued causing its sudden separation / Applicant claims $13,444.10 for the damage to their vehicle / Held: Respondent entitled to expect the professional who repaired the tyre to check replacement tyre on vehicle / Separation of the wheel was not caused by a lack of care, Respondent not responsible for the collision / claim dismissed.

  Negligence / contributory negligence / car collision / Applicant and Respondent collided as Respondent entered motorway / Applicant’s insurer claimed against Respondent for insured loss / Held: Applicant had right-of-way when Respondent collided with his vehicle / Respondent failed to enter motorway from on-ramp with due care / damage to Applicant’s vehicle and lengths taken by Applicant to locate independent witness added weight to Applicant’s version of events / no evidence of contributory negligence / costs claimed were actual, reasonable and consistent with nature of impact / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $5,656.61  

Tort / negligence / Animals Law Reform Act 1989 / Applicant’s driver was driving a truck and struck a cow that had escaped from a paddock belonging to Respondent / Applicant claimed $15,000 for the cost of repairing the truck and vehicle hire / Held: Respondent was not in control of the stock and therefore has no duty of care / evidence that Respondent was not the owner of the animals and not looking after them / claim dismissed.

Negligence / Apportioning of damage / Applicant reversed out of car park and was struck by a trailer being towed by the Respondent, who had entered the car park through the “exit” and was passing behind the Applicant as she reversed / Applicant did not see Respondent as she was looking in the direction from which it would be expected cars would come / Held: the Respondent failed to exercise reasonable care when entering the car park through the “exit” / however, the Applicant also had a duty to ensure the way was clear before reversing, and failed to fulfil his duty / the Respondent was primarily responsible for the collision as he was performing an unusual manoeuvre / contribution set at 70 per cent for Respondent and 30 per cent for Applicant / Respondent to pay Applicant $999.75.