Search Results

1. EF v TB [2024] NZDT 617 (12 September 2024) [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...Was TB negligent? 3. Every person has a duty to take reasonable care to ensure they do not cause harm to another person or to property belonging to another. In the event a person does cause harm to property, that person may be held liable in negligence to compensate the innocent person for their loss. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 4. TB has accepted responsibility for the accident; however, his insurer has submitted that he is not liable as there has been no negligenc...

2. IU v KI & CI [2022] NZDT 111 (15 August 2022) [pdf, 207 KB]

   ...a representative for IU. Issues 4. The issues for the Tribunal to determine are: (a) Whether KI and CI were negligent, (b) If so, the reasonable costs that flow from the negligent act or omission. Were KI and CI negligent? 5. The law of negligence applies. I have to decide whether KI and CI owed a duty of care to IU. If so, whether they have breached their duty of care, causing damage. If there has been a breach of the duty of care that has caused damage, IU is entitled to th...

3. L Ltd v NO [2024] NZDT 113 (23 January 2024) [pdf, 174 KB]

   ...$33,000.00. The claim is for $26,361.95, comprised of the pre-accident value of $33,000.00, plus towing and salvage costs of $793.50, and less the sale price of the wreck of $7,383.25. Did NO cause the collision? 3. The relevant law is the law of negligence. Drivers must take care not to drive in a way that causes damage to other vehicles or property. The Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 (“LTR”) explains the rules that apply to all drivers. Rules 2.3(1)(b) and (2)(b) LTR...

4. OO v SL [2024] NZDT 196 (19 January 2024) [pdf, 105 KB]

   ...filing fee. 5. The hearing took place by teleconference. SL was not in attendance. SL was called twice but did not pick up when called. The absence of a party does not prevent the hearing from going ahead. 6. The claim is governed by the Tort of Negligence and the relevant driving rules. A driver has a general duty of care to avoid harm or damage to any other road user or property. The duty of care includes the duty to keep a proper look out for cars ahead, and ensure they are alway...

5. BH v JT [2024] NZDT 65 (17 January 2024) [pdf, 185 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 65 APPLICANT BH RESPONDENT JT APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) W Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim by BH is dismissed. Reasons: 1. On 16 August 2023, BH’s [vehicle] was damaged while it was parked outside [address]. BH’s daughter who was the driver at the time believed the damage was caused by JT...

6. TD v EX [2024] NZDT 137 (31 January 2024) [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...going to turn right. EX should have carefully checked that other road users around her were aware of her new intention and not were not already proceeding based on her prior indication, as TD was. 6. A finding of liability requires a finding of negligence. A finding of negligence requires a duty of care, a breach of that duty and damage as a direct result of that breach. All drivers owe a duty of care to all other road users and adjacent property owners. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order...

7. DQ v BH [2024] NZDT 810 (15 November 2024) [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...repair assessment form that PAV is $2750.00. An ‘agreed value’ for insurance purposes is not necessarily the same as a market value, and it is market value just prior to the collision that is used for an accurate measure of damages resulting from negligence. The damages are intended to restore the party who has suffered loss to the position they were in prior to the negligent act. 3. J Ltd obtained a registered valuation which states the PAV for DQ’s vehicle is $6000.00. 4....

8. EU v G Ltd [2024] NZDT 181 (13 June 2024) [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...afternoon had workers on site. [5] The applicant claims the respondent was negligent in that it took too long to close the road and that there was no, or inadequate signage of the work being carried out. The applicant claims it was the respondent’s negligence in not providing adequate signage and enforcing a road closure that caused damage to his vehicle. [6] The respondent denies any negligence submitting the seal failure was due to an unforeseen weather event, that it responded as q...

9. D Ltd v AB [2023] NZDT 473 (15 September 2023) [pdf, 176 KB]

   ...damage to the [vehicle 1], including uninsured losses of $2,640.99. 3. The issues to be determined are: a) Who was responsible for the collision? b) What sum, if any, is AB liable to pay? Who was responsible for the collision? 4. The tort of negligence requires payment of compensation when someone breaches a duty of care to another person causing foreseeable damage. Drivers have a duty of care towards other drivers, which includes compliance with the provisions of the Land Transpor...

10. EM v EN [2024] NZDT 395 (28 May 2024) [pdf, 88 KB]

    ...by a give way sign. In accordance with Rule 4.1 Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, EN had an obligation to give way to all oncoming traffic on [road 1] before exiting [road 2]. As EN failed to give way to oncoming traffic, I find her liable in negligence for losses incurred in the accident. Have the losses been proven? 5. In the event of loss, EM may be entitled to recover the cost of repairs, or the value of the vehicle, whichever is the lesser amount. 6. EM provided an es...