Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Negligence / Land Transport Act 1998 / Applicant’s vehicle was parked on side of road / Respondent was driving along road and started to feel unwell / Respondent attempted to pull over but suffered a seizure / As a result, Respondent’s vehicle accelerated to other side of the road and collided with Applicant’s car / Applicant claimed $25,000.00 compensation for damage to his car / Held: Respondent took reasonable steps to stop driving once he began to feel unwell / Respondent was relying on medical advice that he was fit to drive and his experience of being seizure-free for 40 years / Reasonable for Respondent to conclude risk of having a seizure was low / Applicant failed to prove Respondent was negligent / Respondent not liable for any damage caused / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Parties were involved in vehicle collision / Applicant was in his van on median strip, planning to turn right / Respondent turned right onto road / Respondent moved onto median strip to turn right and the two cars collided / Held: more likely that Respondent was responsible for damage to Applicant’s van / Applicant was entitled to be on median strip, and was there to be seen if Respondent had looked more carefully / No exceptions to rule that cars turning right must give way to all traffic not turning / Costs of repairs reasonable and consistent with damage done / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $11,984.02 / Claim allowed.  

Negligence / Parties were involved in vehicle collision / Respondent was attempting to merge into Applicant’s lane / Respondent’s vehicle came into contact with Applicant’s passing vehicle / Both vehicles suffered damage / Applicant and his insurer claimed $5,143.95 for repair costs / Respondent denied liability, claiming Applicant caused accident because he was speeding / Held: suggestion that Applicant was speeding was speculation / Although Respondent did take care for most of the manoeuvre, in a brief moment she failed to see Applicant’s oncoming vehicle / Location of damage to cars was consistent with Applicant’s account of how the accident happened / Respondent ordered to pay $5,143.95 repair costs / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Applicant claimed she was driving on road when Respondent pulled out of a side road without giving way / Respondent’s vehicle collided with Applicant’s vehicle causing damage / Respondent left the scene without stopping / Applicant brought claim to recover losses incurred in the accident / Held: intersection was controlled by a give way sign / Respondent failed to give way and was therefore liable in negligence for losses incurred / Actual cost to repair vehicle was $575.00 / Respondent ordered to pay $575.00 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Applicant’s vehicle was hit by Respondent’s vehicle at a roundabout / Applicant claimed $3,252.34 for damage caused and cost to hire a private investigator to obtain Respondent’s address / Held: Respondent was in lane designated for a right turn only, but turned left into Applicant’s vehicle, causing damage / Repair cost was $3,464.84 / Respondent had agreed to cost and made $500.00 payment / Respondent liable for balance of $2,964.84 / Respondent’s conduct in giving Applicant an incorrect address had delayed proceedings /  Applicant entitled to claim cost incurred of hiring private investigator ($287.50) so proceedings could be brought to Tribunal / Respondent ordered to pay $3,252.34 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Applicant attended Respondent’s site to carry out work / Applicant was directed to park in a particular spot while unloading their tools / While parked, a concrete aggregator inadvertently overloaded and spilt its content onto Applicant’s vehicle, causing damage / Applicant’s insurer claimed $7,776.07 for repair costs / At hearing, Respondent questioned whether Applicant had parked at the spot longer than it took them to unload tools / Held: Applicant was told where to park by Respondent’s manager / No specific timeframe for unloading tools was given / Respondent had duty of care to protect Applicant from foreseeable risks of harm / Duty was breached when aggregator was overloaded / Damage caused by the spillage of aggregate was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of overloading aggregator / Respondent liable for reasonable costs of repairing damage to Applicant’s vehicle / Respondent order to pay $7,776.07 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Applicant was driving along rural road and came across cows on the road / Applicant pulled her vehicle towards middle of road  and employed hazard lights to warn traffic coming from opposite direction to avoid hitting the cows / Respondent was driving from opposite direction and did not see Applicant’s vehicle, and collision occurred / Applicant and insurer claimed $796.65 for repairs / Held: witness evidence indicated that the Respondent would have had restricted visibility before collision occurred / Respondent did not breach his duty of care to Applicant / Respondent could not reasonably have been expected to see Applicant’s car with sufficient time to stop his vehicle before collision / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Personal injury / Accident Compensation Act 2001 / Applicant claimed dog scratched her vehicle / Applicant brought dog inside to wait for Respondent / Another dog came into café, causing Respondent’s dog to rip leash out of Applicant’s hand, injuring her / Applicant claimed Respondent agreed to pay to repair scratches in her car’s paintwork / Respondent claimed there had been a muddy mark on Applicant’s car, and that she offered to pay for a cut and polish / Applicant and her insurer claimed $5,643.63 for repairs / Held: Applicant failed to prove scratches on car were done by Respondent’s dog and were not pre-existing / Applicant entitled to cut and polish as promised by Respondent / $250 reasonable amount for that task / ACC has exclusive jurisdiction over personal injury claims, so Tribunal unable to hear claim relating to Applicant’s injury / Respondent ordered to pay $250.00 / Claim allowed in part.

Negligence / Parties were involved in a vehicle collision at a roundabout / Respondent entered roundabout and crossed path of Applicant’s vehicle as she exited roundabout / Respondent claimed Applicant had not been indicating correctly / Applicant and her insurer claimed $4560.69 for damage to her vehicle / Held: Respondent caused collision by failing to give way to her right / Respondent liable for repair costs incurred by Applicant’s insurer / Respondent ordered to pay $4560.69 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Applicant’s vehicle was stationary at give way sign when Respondent’s vehicle turned from intersecting road and hit Applicant’s car / Applicant and insurer claimed Respondent was at fault and sought recovery of losses suffered of $5752.75 / Held: crash occurred because Respondent did not make his turn with enough clearance of give way road marking where Applicant was stationary / Costs sought were fair and reasonable / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $5752.75 / Claim granted.

Negligence / Parties were at a speedway / While starting to drive off Respondent’s vehicle showered gravel on Applicant’s vehicle /  Applicant’s vehicle was damaged / Applicant claimed $4,224.10 for cost of repairs / Held: Respondent was negligent / Respondent breached his duty of care to the Applicant by his actions / Respondent caused extensive damage to Applicant’s vehicle / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant's insurer $4,224.10 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Vicarious liability / Applicant purchased wine barrels from Respondent / Respondent’s staff member assisted with carrying the barrels to Applicant’s vehicle and loading them / Applicant claimed barrel slipped and scratched his bumper / Applicant sought $773.38 for repairs / Respondent claimed it was a “joint lift”, it was Applicant’s side that slipped and it was not intentional nor careless by the staff member / Respondent paid half of Applicant’s repair invoice ($386.69) on the basis the Applicant shared the blame for damage / Held: no evidence Respondent’s staff member breached his duty of care / Respondent not vicariously liable for damage / Claim dismissed.

Tort / Negligence / Applicant and Respondent parked opposite each other in carpark / As they both went to leave, their vehicles came into contact / Applicant claimed $2,119.99 for damages caused to their car / Held: evidence inconclusive to establish Respondent caused the damage to the Applicant’s car / Claim dismissed.