Tort / negligence / multiple nose-to-tail collision in queue of cars caused damage to Applicant’s vehicle / Applicant claimed costs from sale of damaged vehicle, which are significantly lower than assessed repair costs / Tribunal finds Second Respondent failed to stop in time causing first collision on Applicant’s car / this then caused First Respondent to hit Second Respondent’s car causing second collision / Tribunal held both respondents liable for the claim / First Respondent liable for 40 per cent of claim; second respondent liable for 60 per cent / claim allowed – First Respondent and Second Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $3,979.38 and $5,969.07, respectively.
You can search by selecting a jurisdiction, a keyword (for example a name) or browse by year. Identifying details have been removed.
Some decisions in this section have had minor editorial changes applied, that have no effect on the outcome.
Search results for Negligence vehicle.
157 items matching your search terms
-
ACR v ZXL and ZXK [2013] NZDT 140 (2 August 2013) [PDF, 75 KB] -
ACJ v ZXV [2013] NZDT 147 (5 June 2013) [PDF, 98 KB] Tort / negligence / Respondent suffered a “blackout” while driving home caused by an epileptic seizure / he lost control of the vehicle and hit Applicant’s parked car / Applicant and his insurer claimed for the cost to repair / Respondent claimed a declaration that he was not liable / Held: Respondent breached duty of care / prudent person in his position would not have driven / Respondent knew he had a reoccurrence of childhood epilepsy, had regular seizures and these would affect his ability to control a vehicle / not disputed that damage was caused by the epileptic seizure / award limited to original assessment / cost reasonable for the nature of damage described / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $3,130.40.
-
ABT Ltd v ZYJ Ltd [2013] NZDT 71 (5 June 2013) [PDF, 75 KB] Tort / negligence / vicarious liability / Respondent’s truck collided with self-closing door of a storage facility owned by the Applicant / Respondent was delivering goods belonging to its customer / Applicant claimed for temporary and full repairs to the door / driver should have seen the door closing / he took a risk in exiting out of the building in such a manner that meant he had less time than usual to exit it / sensors on the door would not have prevented the collision / Held: that the driver drove negligently when exiting the facility / carriage of goods contract between Respondent and its customer excluded liability for trucks directed onto property / Applicant not a party to that contract and exclusion clause was not brought to Applicant’s attention / therefore exclusion clause does not apply to Applicant / driver was an agent for the Respondent and carrying out the Respondent’s business at the time / therefore Respondent vicariously liable for driver’s negligence / costs clai…
-
ABQ and ABR v ZYO [2013] NZDT 56 (5 June 2013) [PDF, 83 KB] Contract / tort / negligence / driver of campervan reversed into Applicant’s car and caused damage to the car / while Respondent owns campervan, Respondent leases campervans to another company (HJ) who hires campervans out / Applicant and Applicant’s insurer claim repair costs from Respondent / claim in contract / driver hired campervan from HJ / therefore no contract between Applicant or Applicant’s insurer and respondent / claim in tort / respondent not responsible for driving and/or control of campervan / driver was not an agent of the respondent / Tribunal also finds Respondent not vicariously liable / claim dismissed.
-
AAL and AAM v ZZQ in his capacity as Trustee of BG Trust [2012] NZDT 3 (7 August 2012) [PDF, 49 KB] Tort / negligence / Animals Law Reform Act 1989 / Applicants’ vehicle driven by First Applicant collided with a bull owned by BG Trust on a state highway / Applicants claimed for the damage to their car / Held: BG trust’s actions were not negligent as they met the standard expected of a reasonably prudent farmer raising bulls / BG trust had taken a number of steps to minimise the likelihood of damage arising / altercation with mob of bulls was unexpected and unavoidable / BG trust could not have done anything further to prevent the escape / claim dismissed.
-
ADZ v ZVZ [2010] NZDT 245 (3 November 2010) [PDF, 86 KB] Tort / negligence / Land Transport Act 1998 / Respondent while driving had diabetic hypoglycaemic episode, lost control of vehicle and collided with Applicant’s parked vehicle / Applicants claimed costs of repairing the damage / Held: medical evidence indicated that the diabetic hypoglycaemic episode was readily foreseeable / Respondent had condition for over 30 years, skipped dinner and undertook vigorous exercise / Respondent should have reasonably appreciated risk / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $13,182.09.
-
KG v TM [2020] NZDT 1416 (12 August 2020) [PDF, 213 KB] Negligence / Assessment of primary liability and contributory negligence / Assessment of reasonable losses suffered / Applicant and respondent were drivers involved in a minor motor vehicle accident / Collision occurred when Respondent passed the Applicant’s vehicle on the left, and Applicant was completing a left-hand turn / Applicant claims repair costs of $4,380.37 / Respondent counter-claims repair costs of $2995.75 / Held: no contributory negligence on Applicant’s behalf, Respondent in breach of s 2.8 of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, and 100% liable for the collision / Detailed invoices and photographs provided by Applicant represented the actual and reasonable losses sustained / Applicant’s claim allowed, Respondent’s claim dismissed / Respondent ordered to pay $4,380.37 to Applicant’s insurer