Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Negligence / Respondent collided work vehicle with Applicant's unattended vehicle / Respondent blacked out / Vitals taken by firefighter showed low heart rate / Applicant and insurer claimed for losses suffered as result of car being uneconomic to repair / Held: more likely than not that Respondent suffered loss of consciousness outside his control / Respondent not negligent and not liable for losses suffered by Applicant / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Land Transport (Road User) 2004 / Parties were involved in road collision / Applicant’s vehicle was a write-off / Applicant and insurer claimed $26,361.95, comprising $33,000 pre-accident value of car, $793.50 towing and salvage costs, less $7,383.25 sale price of wreck / Held: Respondent caused collision / All evidence suggested Respondent’s vehicle crossed centre line and hit Applicant’s vehicle / Costs claimed were reasonable / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $26,361.95 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Respondent hit Applicant’s vehicle causing damage / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $834.00 / Applicant claimed officer failed to submit costs incurred in time for the court to consider / Applicant did not collect $834.00 / Applicant claimed $10,260.00 for written off vehicle, storage and towing costs, phone repair costs, compensation for days off work due to injury, courtesy car costs, child picking/dropping costs, and filing fee reimbursement / Held: Respondent breached duty of care / Respondent was negligent as he failed to stop short of Applicant’s vehicle and caused collision / Respondent liable for cost of reasonable losses suffered by Applicant / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $3,995.92 for vehicle written off, storage and towing charges / Claim allowed in part.

Negligence / Applicant’s son had collision with respondent / Applicants claimed Respondent was liable for collision as he entered lane from a give way controlled sideboard but failed to give way / Respondent claimed other driver is liable because he failed to drive to the conditions / Held: not persuaded by applicant’s claim that the other driver bears some liability / Not enough to rely on a gap left by another vehicle / No evidence of contributory negligence / Damage consistent with description of collision and cost claimed for repair was reasonable / Respondent to pay Applicants $7,261 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Applicant claimed Respondent collided with her vehicle twice / Applicant claimed reimbursement for repair costs / Held: Respondent did not take reasonable care whilst driving / Respondent intoxicated while driving / Reasonable costs of repair were those necessary to restore the vehicle to state before the collision / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant's insurer $3,962.44 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Respondent collided into Applicant’s car / Applicant’s vehicle sustained damage / Applicant took vehicle for repair, costing $9,003.96 which was covered by their insurer / Insurer claimed payment from Respondent for the cost of repair / Held: Respondent caused collision by driving too close to Applicant therefore Respondent liable for cost of repairs / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $9,003.96 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Applicant and Respondent were involved in a car accident in a car park / Parties disagreed about circumstances of the collision / Applicant claimed $18,910.72 for vehicle repair costs / Held: both accounts were credible and both consistent with the evidence of the pattern of damages to the vehicles / Claim not proven to standard of “more likely than not” / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 (LTR) / Applicant turned left out of an intersection, 300-400 metres later turned right into a driveway where he was hit by Respondent / Parties dispute who was at fault / Applicant’s insurance company claimed $20,726.62 for repairs / Held: Rule 5.9 LTR provides that drivers are to be not less than 24 metres behind another vehicle if their speed is 60 km/hour or more but less than 70 kms/hour, and further behind if going faster / Respondent was approximately 4 metres behind the car in front and travelling 65Km/hour / Respondent deemed to be following too close which did not allow enough braking time when Applicant slowed to turn right / Respondent ordered to pay insurance company $20,726.62 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Applicant parked on the side of narrow street / Respondent collided with Applicant's car door pushing it forward / Applicant claimed $2,000 for repair costs / Held: Respondent did not take sufficient care and caused damage to Applicant's vehicle / Applicant did not contribute to and is not responsible for the damage to Respondent's car / Applicant's repair costs are reasonable / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,000 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Applicant was driving vehicle past a stationary taxi on the side of the road / Second Respondent, in rear of taxi opened the right rear door hitting Applicant's car causing damage / Held: Second Respondent was negligent in opening his car door / Prudent passenger would have checked it was safe to open the door before doing so / First Respondent is not liable as she did not open the door / Claim against her is dismissed / Respondent must pay Applicant’s insurer $6850.22 / Claim granted.

Negligence / Respondent ran over Applicant’s dog while driving in driveway over Respondent’s business property / Dog suffered serious injuries / Applicant alleged Respondent breached duty of care to drive reasonably / Respondent stated no evidence that he was not driving carefully / Respondent suggested cause of dog’s injuries was that he was not under control on the property / Applicant claimed vet treatment costs of $20,000 plus $1200 for solicitor’s costs / Held: Respondent was not negligent in operation of his vehicle / No evidence to suggest Respondent was speeding or otherwise driving reckless / Respondent was not in breach of his duty of care / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Vehicle collision / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Applicant's vehicle damaged beyond economical repair in a collision with Respondent's vehicle / Applicant claimed for damages / Held: Respondent breached his duty of care by failing to consider the vehicles that had been following him before attempting a U-turn / Respondent was negligent / Applicant not contributorily negligent / Respondent vicariously liable / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4,700 / Claim allowed.

Tort / Negligence / Duty of care / Respondent operated water blaster to clean car park in close proximity to Applicant's vehicle damaging vehicle's paint / Applicant claimed insurer to be compensated for loss incurred when it repaired damage to vehicle / Held: Respondent breached duty of care to ensure it did not cause damage to Applicant's vehicle / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant's insurer $6,094.43 / Claim allowed.