Search Results

1. TI v HQ [2024] NZDT 897 (18 November 2024) [pdf, 182 KB]

   ...awning was caused by HQ or by some well meaning bystander and if by HQ, what amount should be paid. Findings Liability 4. I find HQ liable for the damage to the awning. 5. The claim is brought under the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in tort, (negligence), where damage to property is alleged. A tort occurs where a person causes harm to another person or their property through a breach of their duty of care to go about their activities in a manner that does not cause foreseeable h...

2. BI v NX [2024] NZDT 310 (22 May 2024) [pdf, 92 KB]

   ...4. The issues I have to consider are: a. Did NX cause the damage by failing to take reasonable care? b. If so, what is the appropriate remedy? Did NX cause the damage by failing to take reasonable care? 5. The relevant law is the law of negligence. Drivers must take care not to drive in a manner that causes damage to another vehicle. 6. I find that NX failed to take reasonable care. This was accepted by NX, who accepted responsibility for the collision as she had been dis...

3. [2011] NZEmpC 49 Katz v Mana Coach Services Ltd [pdf, 143 KB]

   ...the time was across the seas and in no way responsible criminally for the servant‟s conduct. [31] In the recent decision of Wormell v Hagen, 29 the British Columbia Supreme Court again discussed indemnification. In that case the defendant negligently operated his crane causing the plaintiff injury. The defendant sought indemnification from what he claimed was his employer. The Court found both that the defendant was not an employee and that an employer is not liable to indem...

4. EC v UU [2025] NZDT 43 (1 April 2025) [pdf, 178 KB]

   ...respondent may have looked to see if the way was clear, but the evidence shows that in this case she did not look well enough and failed to ensure the way was clear before entering the roundabout. Given the above, I find no evidence of contributory negligence on the part of the applicant. What are the reasonable costs of remedy? [9] The applicant claims the cost of repair $2,303.57 and has supplied evidence to the respondent and the Tribunal supporting this claim. The respondent ha...

5. KW v NX [2023] NZDT 264 (20 June 2023) [pdf, 183 KB]

   ...medical costs of $69.50? CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 3 Did NX fail to give way to KW when she drove from [Road 2] onto [Road 1], causing damage to KW’s e-scooter? Is KW entitled to claim repair costs of $430.00? 5. The law of negligence requires every driver to take care to drive in a manner that does not cause damage to other road user’s vehicles or property. A driver turning into another road, from a stop sign must ensure the way is clear before they proceed and...

6. LA v KD [2023] NZDT 260 (8 June 2023) [pdf, 214 KB]

   ...Are the costs claimed proved? Did KD’s driving cause the collision? 3. On the evidence available I am unable to make a finding that KD’s driving caused the collision and so the claim is dismissed. 4. The law that applies is the law of negligence. Drivers must take reasonable care in operating their vehicle and are responsible for any reasonably foreseeable damage suffered as a result of a failure to do so. 5. The duty to take reasonable care includes a duty to follow the...

7. DQ v SI [2025] NZDT 67 (3 April 2025) [pdf, 215 KB]

   ...have to consider are: a. Did SI fail to take reasonable care and therefore cause damage to DQ’s car? b. If so, what remedy is appropriate? Did SI fail to take reasonable care and therefore cause damage to DQ’s car? 6. Under the law of negligence, drivers of vehicles have a duty of care to other road users including to take care not to drive in a manner than causes damage to another vehicle. In this case, it is not disputed that DQ’s car was parked when another car scraped...

8. TI v K Ltd [2024] NZDT 457 (24 May 2024) [pdf, 162 KB]

   ...written decision of the [Financial Institution] dated 11/10/23) TI choose to withdraw his claim. 2. In short, K Ltd was of the opinion that although the third party “caused” the collision by driving into the rear of TI’s car, she did not do so negligently as she suffered from an unforeseen medical event. For the third party to be found legally liable for the repair costs (including the excess) K Ltd and TI would have to prove her actions were negligent. Given the unforeseen medical...

9. Council v HL [2020] NZDT1493 (27 February 2020) [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...experiencing a manic episode at the time as a result of his bipolar disorder. HL was unaware of his condition until a short time after the incident when he was admitted to [Hospital] and the diagnosis was made. 4. The relevant law is the law of negligence which requires all drivers to take all reasonable care to ensure that their actions or omissions do not cause harm to those persons they can reasonably foresee could be harmed by their actions or omissions. 5. The standard of car...

10. HH v NC [2024] NZDT 53 (29 February 2024) [pdf, 93 KB]

    ...of $2,858.19. There were no uninsured losses. 3. The issues to be determined are: a) Who was responsible for the collision? b) What sum, if any, is NC liable to pay? Who was responsible for the collision? 4. The relevant law is the tort of negligence, which applies 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 Transport Act 1988 and the...