Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

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.

Negligence / Respondent’s vehicle collided with Applicant, damaging his e-Scooter / Applicant claimed $430 for repairs, $240 for temporary transport costs, $955.50 for filing fee and hearing attendance costs, and $69.50 for medical costs / Held: Respondent failed to give way, was negligent / Applicant entitled to repair costs and some costs for alternate transport while waiting for repairs / Circumstances not met for costs award relating to filing fee or time spent attending hearing / Personal injury outside Tribunal’s jurisdiction, claim for medical costs struck out / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $510 / Claim allowed in part.

Negligence / Land Transport (Road User) Rules 2004 / Applicant and Respondent were involved in a car collision / Applicant alleged he pulled up behind Respondent when the Respondent suddenly reversed into him / Applicant and his insurer claimed damages of $10964.91 / Respondent argued he had no option but to reverse as he was threatened by the driver in front of him / Held: combination of other driver’s intimidating driving and threats to Respondent would have made an ordinary person fear for themselves and their physical safety / Respondent’s reaction to the other driver reversing towards his vehicle would have created a real concern for his safety / Respondent not liable for damage to Applicant’s vehicle / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Applicant and Respondent involved in collision / Respondent's insurer holding Applicant liable for $8,182.84 vehicle repair costs / Applicant claimed declaration of non-liability against Respondent / Held: if Respondent had not swerved, Applicant would have likely suffered more serious consequences / Respondent's insurer did not establish claimed amount was most cost-effective repair cost / Fifteen percent deducted from claimed amount / Applicant ordered to pay Respondent's insurer $7,000 / Claim allowed in part.

Negligence / Applicant was driving his truck when he struck a cattle beast /  Animal died and Applicant’s truck was extensively damaged / Applicant filed claim against Respondent, owner of a nearby farm / Applicant filed $10,000 claim for the loss of his vehicle / Held: unable to establish who owned the animal / Evidence indicated Applicant’s vehicle was damaged as a result of collision with the animal / Respondent had a duty of care to ensure all the cattle grazing on his property were not at risk of escaping onto public roads and causing harm or damage to others / Respondent breached his duty of care to road users / Applicant entitled to compensation for damage to his vehicle / Respondent ordered to pay $9,000 to the Applicant, cost of vehicle minus $1,000 for his one month of ownership / Claim granted.

Negligence / Applicant hit pothole in vehicle causing damage to a tyre / Applicant contacted Respondent who sent contractors to fix pothole within 75 minutes / Applicant claimed Respondent knew about the pothole and failed to warn motorists / Applicant claimed compensation for loss that his insurer has not covered / Respondent claimed they had no previous knowledge of the pothole / Held: if the Respondent did owe motorists a duty of care in this instance, then it had not breached that duty as it responded quickly to fix the issue / Claim dismissed.