Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Negligence / Applicant, a taxi driver, had his vehicle damaged when Respondent accidentally drove into it / Respondent’s insurer covered vehicle damage but not Applicant’s claim for loss of income / Applicant claimed $12,037.00 from Respondent for loss of earnings / Held: innocent party entitled to be compensated for loss of ability to use a chattel while being repaired / In the case of a profit-earning chattel, Respondent was liable to pay compensation for profits the chattel would have earned during time of damage to time when repairs should reasonably have been completed / Respondent also responsible for any delays caused by himself or his insurer in paying for repairs / Respondent ordered to pay $12,037.00 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Applicant and Respondent were involved in vehicle collision in a carpark / Each driver believed the other was responsible / Applicant claimed $1,590.54 for car repairs / Held: Applicant failed to prove that Respondent was responsible for the collision / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Applicant and Respondent were involved in vehicle collision / Applicant claimed he was turning into his driveway when Respondent attempted to overtake his vehicle, causing the two vehicles to collide / Respondent claimed Applicant did not indicate in sufficient time for him to avoid a collision / Held: no independent evidence on which to judge whether Respondent acted reasonably in attempting to pass Applicant’s vehicle / Applicant failed to meet burden of proving that Respondent’s actions caused collision / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Duty of Care / Section 5.9(3) Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Four vehicles involved in nose to tail collision / Respondent driver of fourth vehicle / Applicant claimed $24,236.09 for damages allegedly caused by Respondent / Held: Respondent breached duty of care to not follow so closely that he would be unable to stop / Respondent's actions caused the damage to all four vehicles / Respondent liable to put owners and insurers in position they were in before collision occurred / Amounts claimed by insurers found to be reasonable / Respondent must pay $14,942.97 to Second Respondent's insurer / Respondent must pay $5,500 to Applicant's insurer / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Applicant visited Respondent’s property as a prospective tenant / Applicant parked on gravel car park next to lawn / Respondent was mowing lawn, and mowed around grass next to Applicant’s car / Respondent claimed stone was flung out from under the mower and hit his car, causing damage / Applicant claimed $1,022.00 for repairs / Held: Respondent took reasonable care not to damage Applicant’s vehicle / Mowing over stone was possible risk but not a likely or probable risk that needed to be guarded against / Respondent not liable for damage to Applicant’s vehicle / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Parties were involved in road collision between Applicant’s car and Respondent’s truck towing a wide-load trailer with an excavator / Applicant claimed $9,844.00 for repairs to her vehicle / Respondent counterclaimed $4,999.00 for lost earnings responding to claim against it / Held: Respondent’s vehicle was preceded by pilot vehicle and truck and trailer displayed signs and hazard warning flags / Pilot instructed Applicant to stop / Applicant failed to comply with direction to stop, and her decision to continue to advance to an unsafe position caused the collision / Respondent not responsible for collision / Respondent not entitled to costs / Claim and counter-claim dismissed.

Negligence / Respondent crashed vehicle into Applicant’s retaining wall causing damage to the wall / Applicant’s insurer claimed $8,100.42, being the cost to repair the retaining wall less depreciation / Held: Respondent breached her duty of care when she lost control of her vehicle / Respondent was negligent and therefore liable for the damage caused by her actions / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurance company $8,100.42 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Both parties were involved in an accident on a beach / Accident occurred at night in foggy conditions / Both vehicles suffered extensive damage / Parties disagreed about circumstances of the accident / Neither vehicle was economic to repair / Claim and counter-claim sought estimated pre-accident market value of the respective vehicles / Held: neither party was able to prove their version of events to the standard of more likely than not that the other was at fault / Neither claim was proven / Claim and counterclaim dismissed.

Negligence / Applicant claimed vehicle was struck by Respondent causing damage / Applicant claimed $4,995.99 for repair costs and additional compensation / Held: repair costs were reasonable and caused by Respondent's negligent driving / Applicant entitled to be compensated for repair costs / Agreement was between the Applicant and panel beaters / Applicant paid invoice on time and did not incur any interest or late fees / Applicant not entitled to any further compensation / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $3,223.99 / Claim allowed in part.

Negligence / Respondent crashed his vehicle into large cantilever gate at entrance of Applicant’s premises / Respondent had been at a car meet and did a burnout / Respondent saw police arriving and drove away to avoid getting in trouble / It was dark and raining and Respondent didn’t see Applicant’s gates / Applicant and its insurer claimed $17,402.66 as contribution to repair costs / Held: Applicant’s gates were there to be seen / Respondent breached duty of care as a driver by hitting gates and causing damage, and was responsible for repair cost / From Respondent’s evidence it appeared he was most likely distracted by looking in rear view mirror to check if police were following him / Repair costs were reasonable / Despite repair, gate was not back to standard it was prior to damage / Respondent lucky Applicant did not insist on full replacement / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $17,402.66 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Contributory Negligence Act 1947 / Applicant rented a container in Respondent's storage yard / Respondent disposed Applicant's poles and other items / Applicant claimed $7,788.00 from Respondent / Held: cost to replace poles was $5,288.00 / Applicant unable to prove Respondent failed to take reasonable care resulting in damage to Applicant's vehicle / Not considered whether Applicant's actions contributed to vehicle damage / Applicant's actions contributed to loss of poles / Damages reduced by 75 percent / Respondent entitled to set-off outstanding rent arrears but not damage to locks / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,172.00 / Claim allowed in part.

Negligence / Collision occurred in Applicant’s driveway resulting in damage to her car / Applicant stated Second Respondent was responsible as he was driving Applicant’s vehicle, which collided with a pole / First Respondent is Second Respondent’s mother / Applicant claimed for car repair costs / Held: Second Respondent admitted crashing Applicant’s vehicle / Second Respondent had attempted to drive Applicant’s car without her permission / Second Respondent’s liability established / No grounds to impose vicarious liability on First Respondent / Second Respondent ordered to pay $3,114.19 for car repairs / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Applicant’s vehicle was damaged when the Respondent changed direction without indicating / Held: Respondent breached her duty of care to other road users / Respondent changed direction without properly indicating her intention and failing to ensure the way was clear before turning / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $3,407.37 / Claim allowed.