Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Negligence / Respondent kicked in panels on Applicant’s car / Respondent also filled Applicant's petrol vehicle up with diesel / Applicant claimed compensation for the costs of repairing the petrol tank and panels / Applicant's car subsequently stolen / Held: Applicant's car was stolen and there is therefore no hope of it ever being repaired / It would be artificial to award Applicant compensation for repairs which will never be done / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Applicant was parked in his car on the side of the road when he was hit by another car / Respondent then drove past and parked ahead of the Applicant / Applicant took a video of the damage to his own vehicle and noted damage on the Respondent's car / Respondent denied he hit the Applicant's car / Respondent also heard a crash and saw a white car speed past / Respondent stated there was no damage to his vehicle / Respondent claimed he pulled over as a witness, not because he was liable / Held: onus was on the Applicant to prove on the balance of probabilities that the damage was caused in the manner he described / Claim not proven to the required standard / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Applicant was driving her car down a street on a day where there was high wind / A branch from Applicant’s tree fell and hit the bonnet of the Respondent’s car / The vehicle was damaged in the incident and since written off / Applicant claims $4,915 for the car repair and transport costs / Held: Respondent’s were negligent as the tree falling was reasonably foreseeable / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay applicant $3,300.

Tort / Negligence / Bailment / Applicant had driven their motorcycle to complete a compliance check / vehicle testing company parked applicant’s motorcycle in a storage area for motorcycles / Respondent hit applicant’s motorcycle with his vehicle while exiting testing station / motorcycle was taken to third party to get repairs / Applicant claims cost of repairs from respondent and vehicle testing company / Held: vehicle testing company liable as they had complete control over the storage location of Applicant’s motorcycle / Respondent did not take proper care when exiting the vehicle testing centre / vehicle testing company and Respondent to pay Applicant’s insurer $4,840.74 / Claim upheld.

Complaint of misconduct or gross negligence against repossession agent - complaints obstructed licence holder in lawful repossession of vehicle - complaint dismissed.

Negligence /  Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Applicant and Respondent were drivers in a vehicle collision / Both parties accepted that they did not see the other car until impact / Applicant brought a claim of $2,622.00 against Respondent / Whether Respondent caused the collision / If so, did Applicant contribute to the collision  / If so, what was the remedy / Held: Respondent was responsible (at least) in part for the collision / Respondent had an express duty to make sure the road was clear / Respondent did not see the Applicant pull out until it was too late / Applicant had a duty to make sure the road was clear before pulling out onto the road / Taken into account that the Applicant did not see the Respondent’s car until she heard the screech of brakes / Respondent contributed to the collision / Sum that Respondent is ordered to pay reduced by a third to reflect Applicant’s contribution / Applicant ordered to pay Respondent $1,748.00 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Applicant and Respondent were drivers in a vehicle collision / Collision occurred when Respondent was passing a truck and Applicant exited driveway onto road / Applicant claimed $5,000 from Respondent / Respondent’s insurer counter-claimed $8,317.85 from Applicant / Which party caused the collision / Whether Respondent contributed to the collision / Whether costs claimed reasonable / Held: it is more likely than not that Respondent caused collision / Applicant failed to give way to a vehicle on the roadway when he exited the driveway in breach of legislation / Respondent created situation with risk / Applicant beared greater responsibility and respective liability assessed as 80:20 / Costs accepted and proved reasonable / Applicant liable for 80% of Respondent’s loss / Applicant ordered to pay $4,312.13 to Respondent / Claim and counter-claim allowed

Negligence / Land Transport (Road User) Rules 2004 / Applicant and Respondent were drivers in vehicle collision / Respondent entered blocked traffic light intersection, caught in middle of intersection when their light turned red / Applicant entered intersection when their light turned green / Respondent pulled forward at same time, hit Applicant’s car / Applicant and applicant’s insurer claim cost of repairing car, $5,593.94 / Whether Respondent was negligent / Held: Both drivers at fault / Respondent entered intersection unlawfully, r 4.5(2) / Applicant negligently failed to check intersection was clear / Respondent liable for 40% of repair cost / Claim allowed in part, Respondent ordered to pay $2,237.56 to Applicant’s insurer.

Negligence / Whether Respondent negligently caused damage to Applicant’s vehicle / Applicant and Respondent were drivers in a minor motor vehicle collision / Respondent was reversing down a driveway when Applicant was driving along road / Parties dispute whether collision occurred on the road or on the driveway / Applicant’s insurer claims $4781.78 being the cost of repair to their vehicle / Held: collision occurred on driveway as Applicant moved off road to avoid the witness’ vehicle / Respondent was entitled to reverse down driveway, and therefore did not act negligently / Claim dismissed

Negligence / Animals Law Reform Act 1989 / Applicant collided with a herd of cows when driving on a rural road / Second Respondent acknowledged that a farm gate was damaged / Applicant claimed he suffered loss because his vehicle carried finance over and above market value of vehicle / Whether Second Respondent acted with a standard of care expected of a reasonable farmer / Whether Applicant’s loss was foreseeable / Held: Second Respondent did not act with a standard of care expected of a reasonable farmer / Applicant suffered a loss caused by a breach by Second Respondent / Applicant entitled to damages to put him back to the position prior to collision / Ordinary person would not expect to pay for finance above the value of the vehicle / Applicant not proved that he suffered a loss in terms of finance / Applicant’s insurance considered losses/ If insurance had not covered losses than Second Respondent would be liable / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Applicant and respondent were drivers involved in collision / Applicant and insurance company claim for loss after vehicle deemed uneconomic to repair / Respondent counter claims for repairs to vehicle / Held: Respondent pulled out from stationary position / Applicant swerved to avoid him / Respondent breached duty of care by failing to give way / Respondent fully liable / Claim allowed, respondent liable to pay sum to applicant’s insurer

Negligence / Collision between Applicant’s and Respondent’s vehicles / Respondent was a driving instructor and the Second Respondent was driving his car as part of her driving lesson / Applicant and his insurer claim the cost of repairing the Applicant’s car of $3,883.78 / Respondent counterclaims the costs of repair to his car / Whether the parties reached a binding settlement agreement / Whether Second Respondent gave way / Whether Respondent negligent in failing to provide adequate supervision / Whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the Applicant / What sum should be paid between the parties / Held: Respondent offered to get Applicant’s car repaired / Applicant’s response did not constitute a binding settlement merely negotiations / Applicant was under no obligation to continue with the negotiations and was free to decide to proceed through his insurer / Respondent admitted negligence / Respondent was on the phone at the time of the crash / High level of respo…