Search Results

1. DS & ES v KE & X Ltd [2024] NZDT 767 (8 October 2024) [pdf, 99 KB]

   ...Did the Respondent cause damage to the vehicle? 3. I find that, on the evidence, it cannot be determined on a balance of probabilities that the Respondent did cause the damage to the Applicant’s vehicle. 4. The relevant law is the law of negligence. Negligence concerns the duties that a person owes to another to take care. Drivers must take care not to drive in a manner that causes damage to another vehicle. The standard of care required is that of a reasonable prudent driver. A...

2. CL v XP 2015 NZDT 743 (27 February 2015) [pdf, 74 KB]

   ...ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that XP is to pay the sum of $5,656.61 (being all insured loss) directly to CLC Insurance Limited on or before 20 March 2015. Reasons [1] CL and XP were the drivers of two vehicles that collided on a motorway where the on-ramp meets the motorway. At the time of the impact, the left-hand shoulder of the on- ramp/motorway contained barricades that were hard-up against the lane due to road-works. [2] CL was trav...

3. UD v ST & NT [2024] NZDT 726 (5 November 2024) [pdf, 197 KB]

   ...of the towing expense? Is UD entitled to payment for pet care services? Is UD liable for the cost of a replacement engine? 13. In order for UD to be held liable for the cost of an engine replacement, it must first be shown that she was negligent. 14. A finding of negligence requires that there be a duty of care, a breach of that duty and damage as a direct result of that breach. 15. ST and NT claim that UD was negligent for leaving the property, taking their vehicle on a...

4. ACQ v ZXN and ZXM Ltd [2013] NZDT 134 (20 January 2013) [pdf, 52 KB]

   ...claimed for the loss are $4,500.00 being the pre-accident value of the motorcycle minus the amount obtained for the wreck. Issues [4] The issues to be decided are: (i) Were ZXN’s actions negligent? (ii) If so, is there contributory negligence on the part of ACQ? (iii) If ZXN was negligent, is there any vicarious liability on the part of the Second Respondent? Decision [5] I find that there was no negligence on the part of ZXN. AXQ and his insurer�€...

5. AFL v ZUK [2012] NZDT 283 (14 January 2012) [pdf, 79 KB]

   ...have seen AFL’s vehicle; however, it was obviously there to be seen as the collision happened almost immediately that he opened his door a short way. ZUK argued that AFL was driving too closely to his vehicle; however, I find that she was not negligent to drive so closely. In order for two vehicles to pass on the road in question, it is necessary for them to pass very near to the parked cars. The only alternative would be to provide that vehicles cannot pass each other along that s...

6. BO & UO v KQ & Ors [2024] NZDT 149 (12 April 2024) [pdf, 193 KB]

   ...were in before the collision? Has KQ breached his duty of care to follow at such a speed that he stopped a full car length when the car in front stopped and this breach has caused damage to the three vehicles in front of him? 5. The law of negligence and Section 5.9(3) of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 apply in this situation. A finding of negligence requires that there be a duty of care, a breach of that duty and damage as a direct result of that breach. All drivers owe...

7. ADT & CR Insurance Ltd v ZWH [2013] NZDT 221 (9 May 2013) [pdf, 63 KB]

   ...claim the cost of repairing ADT’s vehicle ($3817.91) plus the tow cost of $266.80. Issues [3] The issues for the Tribunal to determine are: (i) Whether ZWH was negligent and caused the damage; (ii) Whether there is any contributory negligence on the part of ADT, and (iii) If ZWH is found liable, whether the costs claimed are reasonable. Decision Was ZWH negligent? [4] ZWH is required to ensure the way is clear before proceeding through the give way onto [...

8. AGE and AGH v ZVR Ltd [2012] NZDT 393 (23 November 2012) [pdf, 67 KB]

   ...pay for the repair costs of this damage. AGE and AGH are insured with BR Insurance Ltd and the damage to the car has been repaired. The sum claimed for the repairs is $5,686.91. Issues [3] The issues are as follows: (i) Was ZVR Ltd negligent in its operation of its road sweeper? (ii) If so, was any damage caused and is ZVR Ltd liable to pay for the damage caused? (iii) If ZVR Ltd was not negligent, is there any other reason it should be required to pay for the damage?...

9. DG & J Ltd v BM [2024] NZDT 327 (23 April 2024) [pdf, 89 KB]

   ...DG’s evidence as to the circumstances leading to the damage to his vehicle. I accept his evidence that the extensive damage (stone chips and small dents to the bonnet, roof right had side of the vehicle) were not pre-existing. 4. The law of negligence applies. 5. I find that BM was negligent. BM breached his duty of care to DG by deliberately spinning the wheels on his vehicle while on a gravel road while there was a vehicle close behind. The showering of gravel behind BM’s...

10. XT Ltd v N [2017] NZDT 1458 (6 March 2017) [pdf, 181 KB]

    ...Tribunal hereby orders: NN is to pay the sum of $4,923.07 to JB Limited on or before Monday 20 March 2017. Reasons: 1. On 7 August 2015, a very windy day, Ms N was getting into her car when a gust of wind blew her car door into the door of a [Dodge] vehicle owned by XT Limited (XT), causing damage. 2. XT and its insurer JB Limited (JB) now claim the cost of repairs to the Dodge of $4,923.07, including uninsured losses of $500.00. 3. The issues to be determined are: a) Was it fo...