Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Negligence / Applicant had a car accident in which they lost control and damaged the front wheel, Applicant claimed an earlier fuel spill on the road caused crash / Applicant claims the Council and Transport did not take necessary precautions to block the road and clean the fuel spill immediately /  Applicant believes further damage was cause to their car by towing company when car was unloaded / Held: Transports duties are performed on behalf of Council and both have a duty of care to take adequate precautions / No evidence found to suggest Transport did not in reasonable promptness clean up fuel spill / Inconclusive if further damage to car was caused by towing company or a result of moving the damaged vehicle / Claim dismissed 

Negligence / Respondent reversed his truck into the Applicant’s Toyota Hilux causing damage to the vehicle / Applicant and Applicant’s insurer claimed $3,337.99 for repair costs / Held: Respondent failed to keep a proper look out when reversing his truck and failed to give way to the driver of the Hilux / Respondent’s visibility was significantly obstructed and took no extra steps to check for oncoming traffic / Respondent did not take reasonable care in operating his truck / costs claimed are reasonable / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $3,286.13.

Negligence / car collision / Applicant claimed for pre-accident valuation of car prior to sale, uneconomic to repair / Respondent counterclaimed for estimated repair costs to car she drove, not owned by her / Held: Respondent breached duty to act with reasonable care and due consideration for others / solely negligent for not giving way / drivers must take care not to drive in a manner that causes damage to another vehicle / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, r 4.2 / costs claimed established, reasonable / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $3,020.35 / Respondent’s counterclaim dismissed

Negligence / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Applicant was riding his motorbike and while overtaking two cars collided with Respondent who was turning right / Applicant claimed $15,000 for loss suffered / Held: driving on the road gives rise to a statutory duty of care / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / s 8 Land Transport Act 1988 / various factors to be taken into account to establish whether there is a lack of reasonable care in any particular case / even if Applicant did partly encroach the flush median this did not cause the accident / cause of the accident was Respondent placing his vehicle in the path of Applicant’s motorbike when he made the right turn / Respondent failed to take reasonable care to ascertain whether any other vehicle was approaching from his right / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s Insurer $15,000.

Tort / negligence / multiple nose-to-tail collision in queue of cars caused damage to Applicant’s vehicle / Applicant claimed costs from sale of damaged vehicle, which are significantly lower than assessed repair costs / Tribunal finds Second Respondent failed to stop in time causing first collision on Applicant’s car / this then caused First Respondent to hit Second Respondent’s car causing second collision / Tribunal held both respondents liable for the claim / First Respondent liable for 40 per cent of claim; second respondent liable for 60 per cent / claim allowed – First Respondent and Second Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $3,979.38 and $5,969.07, respectively.

Tort / negligence / vicarious liability / Respondent’s truck collided with self-closing door of a storage facility owned by the Applicant / Respondent was delivering goods belonging to its customer / Applicant claimed for temporary and full repairs to the door / driver should have seen the door closing / he took a risk in exiting out of the building in such a manner that meant he had less time than usual to exit it / sensors on the door would not have prevented the collision / Held: that the driver drove negligently when exiting the facility / carriage of goods contract between Respondent and its customer excluded liability for trucks directed onto property / Applicant not a party to that contract and exclusion clause was not brought to Applicant’s attention / therefore exclusion clause does not apply to Applicant / driver was an agent for the Respondent and carrying out the Respondent’s business at the time / therefore Respondent vicariously liable for driver’s negligence / costs clai…

Tort / negligence / Animals Law Reform Act 1989 / Applicants’ vehicle driven by First Applicant collided with a bull owned by BG Trust on a state highway / Applicants claimed for the damage to their car / Held: BG trust’s actions were not negligent as they met the standard expected of a reasonably prudent farmer raising bulls / BG trust had taken a number of steps to minimise the likelihood of damage arising / altercation with mob of bulls was unexpected and unavoidable / BG trust could not have done anything further to prevent the escape / claim dismissed.

Negligence / Assessment of primary liability and contributory negligence / Assessment of reasonable losses suffered / Applicant and respondent were drivers involved in a minor motor vehicle accident / Collision occurred when Respondent passed the Applicant’s vehicle on the left, and Applicant was completing a left-hand turn / Applicant claims repair costs of $4,380.37 / Respondent counter-claims repair costs of $2995.75 / Held: no contributory negligence on Applicant’s behalf, Respondent in breach of s 2.8 of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, and 100% liable for the collision / Detailed invoices and photographs provided by Applicant represented the actual and reasonable losses sustained / Applicant’s claim allowed, Respondent’s claim dismissed / Respondent ordered to pay $4,380.37 to Applicant’s insurer