Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

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.

Negligence / Respondent was driving when he appeared to lose control of his vehicle and crashed into the Applicant’s parked van / Impact caused significant damage to van and its contents / Applicant claimed $30,000, being $25,000 for the van, $2360.12 for tools damaged in the accident, and the balance for stress and inconvenience / Respondent accepted responsibility for accident, however his insurer submitted he was not liable as there was no negligence / Respondent stated he believed he had a seizure because he had no memory of the accident / Respondent had recently stopped taking all medication prescribed for his medical condition and embarked on an extreme weight loss programme without medical advice / Held: a prudent person would have sought advice before ceasing medication and embarking on an extreme weight loss programme, and failing to do so was a breach of a duty of care / Breach of the duty of care led to the accident / Respondent was negligent / Respondent liable to pay vehic…

Negligence / Applicant and Respondent were drinking at a mutual friend’s house / Applicant went home and left his vehicle and its key at the friend’s house / Respondent later advised Applicant he had driven the vehicle and damaged it / Applicant claimed for repair costs / Held: evidence indicated Respondent damaged Applicant’s vehicle / Respondent breached his duty of care by causing the damage / Applicant entitled to compensation for the reasonably foreseeable loss incurred as a result of Respondent’s breach / Valuation showed vehicle was worth $7,000.00 before the damage occurred / Cost of repairs quoted as $5,539.78 / Applicant sold vehicle in its damaged state for $1,500 / Deducting the sale price from the vehicle’s valuation meant Applicant incurred a loss of $5,500.00 / Applicant claimed to be compensated $4,999.95, that amount was less than the reasonably foreseeable loss incurred / Respondent ordered to pay $4,999.95 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Applicant was involved in a minor vehicle collision with Respondent’s driver / Collision occurred after Applicant changed lanes and moved in front of Respondent’s vehicle / On basis that it was a “rear-end” collision, Applicant and his insurer claimed cost of repairs to Applicant’s vehicle, being $2437.32 / Respondent contended that Applicant caused the collision by “brake-checking” their vehicle behind / Respondent counterclaimed for cost of their repairs, being $1328.83 / Held: dashcam footage showed there was not much of a gap for Applicant’s vehicle to move into, and that he braked suddenly after changing lanes / Combination of evidence lead to conclusion Applicant was brake-checking / This practice is inherently dangerous and followed a tight lane change / Applicant was fully liable for causing the collision / Applicant ordered to pay Respondent $1328.83 / Claim dismissed / Counterclaim allowed.

Tort law / Negligence / First Respondent was spray-painting at a property / Applicant’s vehicle was damaged by paint overspray while at the neighbouring premises owned by Second Respondent / Applicant made an insurance claim / Applicant’s insurer brings a claim against First Respondent and subsequently applied to join Second Respondent based on law of bailment / Held: First Respondent owed a duty of care to Applicant / First Respondent is personally liable for the damage he caused / Claim against second respondent is dismissed as they took all reasonable steps to prevent loss / Claim partly allowed, First Respondent to pay Applicant’s insurer $30,000 by 14 August 2024 / Claim against Second Respondent is dismissed.

Tort / Negligence / Respondent undertook resealing work on portion of a state highway / Seal began to fail within 5 days / Respondent advised seal was failing and emergency remedial work required / Applicant claimed Respondent was negligent by taking too long to close the road and had inadequate signage / Applicant claimed negligence caused damage to his vehicle / Held: Respondent owed Applicant a duty of care / Applicant failed to provide evidence that Respondent was negligent in its original sealing work / Time Respondent took to arrive on site was not unreasonable / Damage claimed by Applicant not due to alleged breach / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Parties were involved in a road collision / Truck had stopped because of debris on the road / Applicant’s car stopped short of the truck / Respondent was unable to stop in time and clipped Applicant’s vehicle, shunting her into a vehicle in front / Applicant’s vehicle was  damaged / Applicant’s insurer brought claim against Respondent for $12,198.48 / Held: Respondent breached Road User Rules by driving at such a speed that he was unable to stop short of car travelling ahead of him after it had stopped suddenly / Respondent was negligent when his car hit Applicant’s car / Applicant was not negligent and did not contribute to collision / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $12,198.48 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Parties were involved in vehicle collision / Parties collided when Respondent was changing lanes / Differing accounts as to who was at fault / Held: solely the Respondent’s duty to make sure the lane was clear for her to enter at all stages of her manoeuvre to change lanes / Most likely cause of collision was an inadequate or inaccurate assessment on Respondent’s part of Applicant’s distance and/or speed / Respondent found to bear 100% liability for causing collision / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s reasonable repair costs / Applicant provided repair quotation of $2,886.50 which was considered to be reasonable cost for repairing damage sustained in collision / Respondent ordered to pay $2,886.50 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Parties were involved in vehicle collision / Differing accounts as to who was at fault / Applicant said he was driving straight in his lane when the Respondent’s car crossed directly in front of him appearing to have lost control / Respondent said she was driving straight in her lane when the Applicant indicated right and moved a bit into her lane as she was passing / Respondent said she took evasive action but in doing so lost control and spun across the motorway, hitting the front of the Applicant’s vehicle / Applicant and his insurance company claimed the losses resulting from the Applicant’s car being written off, $7269.95 / Held: evidence indicated Applicant made an unsafe lane change as he did not check adequately that the way was clear before entering the Respondent’s lane / Applicant’s actions caused the Respondent to lose control of her vehicle and that led to the resulting collision / Respondent was not liable in negligence / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Applicant was involved in road collision with Third Respondent, driving a vehicle owned by First Respondent (her employer) / Each party maintained the other was responsible for collision / Applicant claimed $7,137.97 for cost of repairs and bringing claim / First Respondent counterclaimed $10,327.38 for cost of repairs / Held: on balance of probabilities, Third Respondent was responsible for collision / Most probably Third Respondent turned out of a driveway into the path of an oncoming car, thereby causing the collision / Third Respondent was driving First Respondent’s vehicle as its employee / First Respondent vicariously liable for Third Respondent’s actions / Costs claimed by Applicant for repairs was reasonable / Costs for bringing claim unable to be awarded / First and Third Respondents ordered to pay Applicant $6,637.96 / Claim allowed / Counterclaim dismissed.