Search Results

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

   ...his motorcycle has been written off. The costs 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 neg...

2. DC and SN v KH [2020] NZDT 1449 (23 September 2020) [pdf, 215 KB]

   ...absence. 4. AB Ltd claims $4781.78 being the cost of repair to the applicants’ ute which sustained damage to the left side panel of the ute tray. 5. The issues to determine are: • Did KH reverse into SN’s path on the road? • Did KH negligently cause damage to the applicants’ vehicle? • What are the reasonable losses suffered as a result of the collision? Did KH reverse into SN’s path on the road? 6. KH says the rear of his Toyota Rav4 had not entered the r...

3. CZ-v-XA-2016-NZDT-894-25-February-2016 [pdf, 68 KB]

   ...claim for the damage to his vehicle. Issues [4] The issues are: a. Did XA cause a hazard by opening his car door? b. If so, are the costs claimed reasonable? Did XA cause a hazard by opening his car door? [5] The relevant law is the law of negligence. Negligence concerns the duties that one person owes another to take care. The standard of care required is that of a reasonable prudent driver. Drivers must take care not to drive in a manner that causes damage to another vehi...

4. 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...

5. TG v AM & PD Ltd [2023] NZDT 368 (24 July 2023) [pdf, 121 KB]

   ...CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 5 5. So, the issues to be determined are: a. Who was responsible for the collision? b. If AM was responsible, is PD Ltd vicariously liable? c. What if any reasonable costs associated with the damage to the vehicles ought to be paid and in what proportion? Who was responsible for the collision? 6. The relevant law is the tort of negligence, which applies when someone breaches a duty of care to another person causing foreseeable damage. Dri...

6. EJ v BC [2020] NZDT 1431 [pdf, 215 KB]

   ...BC and MHI counter-claim $6080.00 being the total loss of BC's vehicle which was also uneconomic to repair. 4. The issues to determine are: • Did BC breach her duty of care to EJ as the driver turning right? • Was there contributory negligence on EJ's part, specifically due to his use of the flush median and his speed? • What were the parties' reasonable losses as a result of the collision? Did BC breach her duty of care to EJ as the driver turning right?...

7. 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...

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. LCRO 140/2021 TQ v RI (8 August 2022) [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...provides the essence of Mr TQ’s allegations:5 RI, [Law Firm A] has not included all the previous invoices relating to this matter. The previous work, which was carried out, and the other invoices which have been charged and paid for, were due to the negligence and incompetence of RI, [Law Firm A]. I had made it quite clear to RI, [Law Firm A] from the initial outset, that the first and second plaintiffs should not have the right to sue me, as the first and second plaintiff was incorr...

10. JT & JB Ltd v SN [2021] NZDT 1582 (16 July 2021) [pdf, 197 KB]

    ...stated that he was travelling in the right lane to make a right turn to Newtown. He said that SN was in the left lane and he changed lanes and hit the left front of the taxi. Findings about what happened 10. For a finding about negligence the Tribunal must first make a finding about the facts of the case. The standard of proof is the balance of probability. There must be more certainty than doubt about what happened. 11. The damage that resulted from the co...