Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Tort law / Negligence / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Applicant and Respondent were involved in car accident / Applicant drove straight through intersection / Respondent turned right from side street with give way sign and collided with Applicant / Respondent claimed intersection was blocked and Applicant was speeding / Applicant claimed $3482.55 for damage caused / Held: Respondent failed to give way and entered intersection without ensuring turn could be completed safely / Tribunal found Respondent’s maneuver unreasonable given vehicle size and traffic conditions / Tribunal rejected Respondent’s claims that Applicant was speeding or should have stopped due to insufficient evidence and conflicting accounts / No proof Applicant’s driving contributed to collision / Respondent and insurer ordered to pay Applicant and insurer $3482.55 / Claim accepted.

Negligence / Contributory Negligence Act 1947 / Applicant struck cattle beast owned by Respondent while driving his vehicle / Applicant and Respondent claimed damages / Held: both parties contributed to cause of crash / Respondent had a duty to warn drivers and exercise due care / Applicant failed his duty of care by not slowing significantly to ascertain what was happening ahead / Proportion of liability is 60% for Respondent and 40% for Applicant / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant's insurer $7,657.48 / Claim allowed in part.

Negligence / Damages / Insurance / Applicant's vehicle damaged while parked / Applicant found out it was the Respondent through a witness / Respondent admitted to minor collision which was due to her tyre blowing out / Communications continued for a few years after incident / Respondent refused to pay damages and claimed she did not damage the vehicle / Respondent reported Applicant to police for harassment / Applicant claimed $2,532.50 repair costs / Held: Applicant provided sufficient evidence to satisfy burden of proof / Respondent failed to exercise duty of care when her vehicle collided with the Applicant's vehicle / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant's insurer $2,510 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Applicant was involved in a road collision / A few days earlier, Respondent had replaced a punctured tyre on Applicant’s vehicle with a space saver tyre / Applicant blamed the collision solely on the tyre being placed on the front of the vehicle / Applicant claimed the  Respondent was liable for the resulting damage to his vehicle / Respondent denied liability, claiming collision was caused by Applicant’s speed in wet conditions in a highly urban area, in contravention of NZTA guidelines / Held: position and existence of space saver tyre may have contributed to collision, but was not the only factor / Applicant was clearly not driving to the conditions / Not satisfied Respondent’s actions in replacing the punctured tyre with space saver tyre at the request of Applicant was negligent / Applicant proceeded to take unnecessary travel knowing it was a bad idea / Liability for collision and loss remained with Applicant / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Tort / Negligence / Applicant engaged by Respondent to house or pet sit / Applicant used Respondent's vehicle with permission / Vehicle had issues while driving / Applicant advised not to drive vehicle / Applicant claimed reimbursement for towing fees / Held: Respondent did not advise Applicant vehicle was 6 months overdue for service and was being monitored for mechanical faults / Applicant not negligent and not liable for replacement engine / Applicant entitled to 50% reimbursement for towing expense / Applicant not entitled to pet care services payment as contract was for unpaid house and pet care services / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant / Claim allowed in part.

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.