Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Negligence / Applicant claimed vehicle was struck by Respondent causing damage / Applicant claimed $4,995.99 for repair costs and additional compensation / Held: repair costs were reasonable and caused by Respondent's negligent driving / Applicant entitled to be compensated for repair costs / Agreement was between the Applicant and panel beaters / Applicant paid invoice on time and did not incur any interest or late fees / Applicant not entitled to any further compensation / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $3,223.99 / Claim allowed in part.

Negligence / Respondent crashed his vehicle into large cantilever gate at entrance of Applicant’s premises / Respondent had been at a car meet and did a burnout / Respondent saw police arriving and drove away to avoid getting in trouble / It was dark and raining and Respondent didn’t see Applicant’s gates / Applicant and its insurer claimed $17,402.66 as contribution to repair costs / Held: Applicant’s gates were there to be seen / Respondent breached duty of care as a driver by hitting gates and causing damage, and was responsible for repair cost / From Respondent’s evidence it appeared he was most likely distracted by looking in rear view mirror to check if police were following him / Repair costs were reasonable / Despite repair, gate was not back to standard it was prior to damage / Respondent lucky Applicant did not insist on full replacement / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $17,402.66 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Contributory Negligence Act 1947 / Applicant rented a container in Respondent's storage yard / Respondent disposed Applicant's poles and other items / Applicant claimed $7,788.00 from Respondent / Held: cost to replace poles was $5,288.00 / Applicant unable to prove Respondent failed to take reasonable care resulting in damage to Applicant's vehicle / Not considered whether Applicant's actions contributed to vehicle damage / Applicant's actions contributed to loss of poles / Damages reduced by 75 percent / Respondent entitled to set-off outstanding rent arrears but not damage to locks / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,172.00 / Claim allowed in part.

Negligence / Collision occurred in Applicant’s driveway resulting in damage to her car / Applicant stated Second Respondent was responsible as he was driving Applicant’s vehicle, which collided with a pole / First Respondent is Second Respondent’s mother / Applicant claimed for car repair costs / Held: Second Respondent admitted crashing Applicant’s vehicle / Second Respondent had attempted to drive Applicant’s car without her permission / Second Respondent’s liability established / No grounds to impose vicarious liability on First Respondent / Second Respondent ordered to pay $3,114.19 for car repairs / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Applicant’s vehicle was damaged when the Respondent changed direction without indicating / Held: Respondent breached her duty of care to other road users / Respondent changed direction without properly indicating her intention and failing to ensure the way was clear before turning / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $3,407.37 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Applicant was driving down highway when she lost control and crashed, causing damage to her vehicle / Accident occurred on a section of highway that had recently been resealed by Respondent’s contractor / Applicant claimed there was an excessive amount of loose chip on the road, and that Respondent failed to warn her to slow down by showing a reduced speed sign / Applicant claimed $6,995.00 compensation for replacement cost of her car, salvage, storage and alternative travel from the accident / Held: accident did not occur due to negligent actions of the Respondent / Respondent had taken all reasonable steps to remove loose chip off road and had appropriate signage warning motorists of loose chip / Loose chip sign gave Applicant notice of temporary hazard which meant she should immediately slow down / Accident likely caused by Applicant failing to slow down and drive carefully across the loose chip / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Applicant and Respondent involved in vehicle collision / Applicant claimed Respondent and his insurer were liable for repair costs / Respondent and his insurer claimed Applicant's driving contributed to or caused collision / Held: Respondent breached the duty of care he owed as a driver to other road users / Applicant's driving did not contribute to collision / Respondent's insurer ordered to pay Applicant's insurer $4,679.06 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Applicant’s vehicle was damaged by a passing car while parked on side of road / Applicant believed damage was caused by Respondent, whose car was passing at the time / Respondent denied hitting Applicant’s car, claimed he observed another car ahead of him on the road scrape Applicant’s car / Held: Applicant failed to prove on balance of probabilities that damage was caused by Respondent / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Damages / Applicant and Respondent involved in vehicle collision / Applicant braked suddenly for pedestrian / Respondent following too closely and was unable to stop / Damage caused to Applicant’s car / Respondent disputed repair costs and pre-accident value of Applicant’s car / Applicant claimed repair costs / Held: repair costs proven as reasonable losses suffered as a result of collision / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $9,343.84 / Claim allowed.

Tort / Negligence / Land Transport Road User Rules 2004 / Respondent backed his car into side of Applicant's car causing damage / Applicant claimed damages / Held: Applicant proved it is more likely than not that Respondent was responsible for collision / Applicant was not speeding and cause of collision was failure by Respondent to ensure way was clear before backing the vehicle / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4,847.25 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Duty of care / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Applicant and Respondent involved in vehicle accident / Applicant's insurer covered vehicle repair costs / Applicant claimed $8,588.44 / Held: Respondent failed to ensure path he was driving into was clear when he drove into Applicant's vehicle / Respondent was negligent / Applicant did not contribute to cause of collision / Costs claimed reasonable for damage caused in collision / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant's Insurer $8,588.44 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Applicant and Respondent were involved in vehicle collision / Applicant alleged Respondent reversed into Applicant’s stationary vehicle, causing collision / Respondent alleged Applicant was at fault / Applicant claimed $4543.05 for repairs / Held: Photos of damage to Applicant’s vehicle supported Applicant’s version of events / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4543.05 / Claim allowed.  

Negligence / Vehicle collision / Land Transport Act 1988 / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Applicant and Respondent involved in vehicle collision / Applicant and its insurer claimed $30,000 for damages to vehicle, including uninsured losses $2,640.99 / Held: Respondent responsible for crash by failing to give way at roundabout / Repairs claimed for damage to Applicant's vehicle supported by invoices provided /  Towing and rental costs reasonable but are unable to be claimed as it exceeds the Disputes Tribunal's $30,000 limit / Claim allowed.