Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Negligence / Traffic law / Applicant had stopped to turn right with Respondent driving towards Applicant in opposite lane / Head-on collision occurred and Applicant and witness said Respondent had veered into Applicant's lane / Applicant claimed $9075.51 for written off car and towing costs / Respondent counterclaimed for $17955 for repairs and towing costs / Held: more likely than not that Applicant remained in own lane and collision was caused by Respondent / Witness said Respondent's vehicle was coming towards Applicant's vehicle despite sufficient room in Respondent's own lane / Respondent had duty to not drive in way that causes damage to other vehicles or property / Respondent breached duty by causing damage to Applicant's car and was liable for reasonable costs of returning Applicant to position they would have been in if breach did not occur / Costs claimed were reasonable / Respondent to pay Applicant’s insurer $9075.51 / Claim allowed and counterclaim dismissed.

Negligence / Respondent and Applicant had a vehicle collision as Applicant turned out of a driveway / Respondent accepted liability, but disputed amount claimed by the Applicant and their insurer / Applicant's vehicle was assessed as uneconomic to repair / Applicant's insurer obtained a registered valuation for the vehicle of $6000.00 / Applicant and their insurer claimed $6196.20 / Respondent obtained three vehicle valuations for Applicants car, values varied between $1849.00 and $2750.00 / Applicant admitted he purchased the vehicle for $3500 in 2020 / Held: car's purchase price adequately reflected market value / Car value would have reduced via depreciation in subsequent three years / Pre-accident value of Applicant's vehicle was therefore $3000.00 / Respondent ordered to pay $3196.20 (being $2946.20 insured loss and $250.00 uninsured loss) to Applicant's insurer / Claim granted in part.

Negligence / Applicant and Respondent involved in vehicle and e-bike collision / Applicant claimed reparations / Held: First Respondent negligently caused damage to Applicant's e-bike and property when Respondent failed to give way when turning right / Second Respondent breached her duty of care to other road users by allowing a suspended driver to drive her vehicle / Respondents ordered to pay Applicant $1999.00 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Vehicle collision / Applicant claimed Respondent came into her lane and collided with Applicant / Respondent stated he was not the driver of the vehicle at time of collision / Respondent provided evidence that he was on other side of town when collision occurred / Respondent stated he was not person in photo that Applicant took / Applicant claimed vehicle repair costs / Held: cannot be determined whether Respondent was the driver involved in the collision / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Applicant and Respondent involved in vehicle collision / Applicant claimed vehicle's pre-accident value plus towing, storage and assessment costs less salvage cost / Respondent counter-claimed repairs to his vehicle / Held: Respondent caused collision by failing to make sure the road was clear before pulling out on the road / Applicant not liable to pay damages to Respondent's vehicle / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant's insurer $5,262.25 / Counter-claim dismissed / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Respondent was driving when he appeared to lose control of his vehicle and crashed into the Applicant’s parked van / Impact caused significant damage to van and its contents / Applicant claimed $30,000, being $25,000 for the van, $2360.12 for tools damaged in the accident, and the balance for stress and inconvenience / Respondent accepted responsibility for accident, however his insurer submitted he was not liable as there was no negligence / Respondent stated he believed he had a seizure because he had no memory of the accident / Respondent had recently stopped taking all medication prescribed for his medical condition and embarked on an extreme weight loss programme without medical advice / Held: a prudent person would have sought advice before ceasing medication and embarking on an extreme weight loss programme, and failing to do so was a breach of a duty of care / Breach of the duty of care led to the accident / Respondent was negligent / Respondent liable to pay vehic…

Negligence / Applicant and Respondent were drinking at a mutual friend’s house / Applicant went home and left his vehicle and its key at the friend’s house / Respondent later advised Applicant he had driven the vehicle and damaged it / Applicant claimed for repair costs / Held: evidence indicated Respondent damaged Applicant’s vehicle / Respondent breached his duty of care by causing the damage / Applicant entitled to compensation for the reasonably foreseeable loss incurred as a result of Respondent’s breach / Valuation showed vehicle was worth $7,000.00 before the damage occurred / Cost of repairs quoted as $5,539.78 / Applicant sold vehicle in its damaged state for $1,500 / Deducting the sale price from the vehicle’s valuation meant Applicant incurred a loss of $5,500.00 / Applicant claimed to be compensated $4,999.95, that amount was less than the reasonably foreseeable loss incurred / Respondent ordered to pay $4,999.95 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Applicant was involved in a minor vehicle collision with Respondent’s driver / Collision occurred after Applicant changed lanes and moved in front of Respondent’s vehicle / On basis that it was a “rear-end” collision, Applicant and his insurer claimed cost of repairs to Applicant’s vehicle, being $2437.32 / Respondent contended that Applicant caused the collision by “brake-checking” their vehicle behind / Respondent counterclaimed for cost of their repairs, being $1328.83 / Held: dashcam footage showed there was not much of a gap for Applicant’s vehicle to move into, and that he braked suddenly after changing lanes / Combination of evidence lead to conclusion Applicant was brake-checking / This practice is inherently dangerous and followed a tight lane change / Applicant was fully liable for causing the collision / Applicant ordered to pay Respondent $1328.83 / Claim dismissed / Counterclaim allowed.

Tort law / Negligence / First Respondent was spray-painting at a property / Applicant’s vehicle was damaged by paint overspray while at the neighbouring premises owned by Second Respondent / Applicant made an insurance claim / Applicant’s insurer brings a claim against First Respondent and subsequently applied to join Second Respondent based on law of bailment / Held: First Respondent owed a duty of care to Applicant / First Respondent is personally liable for the damage he caused / Claim against second respondent is dismissed as they took all reasonable steps to prevent loss / Claim partly allowed, First Respondent to pay Applicant’s insurer $30,000 by 14 August 2024 / Claim against Second Respondent is dismissed.

Tort / Negligence / Respondent undertook resealing work on portion of a state highway / Seal began to fail within 5 days / Respondent advised seal was failing and emergency remedial work required / Applicant claimed Respondent was negligent by taking too long to close the road and had inadequate signage / Applicant claimed negligence caused damage to his vehicle / Held: Respondent owed Applicant a duty of care / Applicant failed to provide evidence that Respondent was negligent in its original sealing work / Time Respondent took to arrive on site was not unreasonable / Damage claimed by Applicant not due to alleged breach / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Parties were involved in a road collision / Truck had stopped because of debris on the road / Applicant’s car stopped short of the truck / Respondent was unable to stop in time and clipped Applicant’s vehicle, shunting her into a vehicle in front / Applicant’s vehicle was  damaged / Applicant’s insurer brought claim against Respondent for $12,198.48 / Held: Respondent breached Road User Rules by driving at such a speed that he was unable to stop short of car travelling ahead of him after it had stopped suddenly / Respondent was negligent when his car hit Applicant’s car / Applicant was not negligent and did not contribute to collision / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $12,198.48 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Parties were involved in vehicle collision / Parties collided when Respondent was changing lanes / Differing accounts as to who was at fault / Held: solely the Respondent’s duty to make sure the lane was clear for her to enter at all stages of her manoeuvre to change lanes / Most likely cause of collision was an inadequate or inaccurate assessment on Respondent’s part of Applicant’s distance and/or speed / Respondent found to bear 100% liability for causing collision / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s reasonable repair costs / Applicant provided repair quotation of $2,886.50 which was considered to be reasonable cost for repairing damage sustained in collision / Respondent ordered to pay $2,886.50 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Parties were involved in vehicle collision / Differing accounts as to who was at fault / Applicant said he was driving straight in his lane when the Respondent’s car crossed directly in front of him appearing to have lost control / Respondent said she was driving straight in her lane when the Applicant indicated right and moved a bit into her lane as she was passing / Respondent said she took evasive action but in doing so lost control and spun across the motorway, hitting the front of the Applicant’s vehicle / Applicant and his insurance company claimed the losses resulting from the Applicant’s car being written off, $7269.95 / Held: evidence indicated Applicant made an unsafe lane change as he did not check adequately that the way was clear before entering the Respondent’s lane / Applicant’s actions caused the Respondent to lose control of her vehicle and that led to the resulting collision / Respondent was not liable in negligence / Claim dismissed.