Search Results

1. EH v KN Ltd [2024] NZDT 753 (21 November 2024) [pdf, 120 KB]

   ...looked at whether the respondent has been negligent in the provisions of its services to the applicant. I am not persuaded it was. Nor am I persuaded the respondent’s actions contributed to the loss. To be considered a contributing factor a party’s negligence must be, in some way, causative of proven loss. [15] I accept the respondent’s employee placed the space saver on the front wheel rather than the rear when requested to so. The applicant may well have had good grounds for this...

2. DF v FX [2023] NZDT 673 (31 October 2023) [pdf, 173 KB]

   ...drove into the rear of it. 2. FX claims that she was momentarily blinded by sunstrike and that DF’ car was illegally parked therefore she is not completely to blame for the collision. 3. For FX to be held liable for the costs to repair DF’ vehicle, it must first be proven that FX was negligent. 4. A finding of negligence requires a duty of care, a breach of that duty and damage as a direct result of that breach. All drivers owe a duty of care to all other road users and adja...

3. KC Ltd v OK [2019] NZDT 1378 (17 July 2019) [pdf, 268 KB]

   ...different to causing damage wilfully, that is, intentionally - it is clear that Mr K did not intentionally or deliberately damage the van/clutch. 14. With respect to the definition of 'reckless', I consider it to be more serious than 'negligent', and note that 'negligent' is not included in the wording of the exclusion clause, because of course the point of vehicle insurance is to cover the insured's negligence. There are some similar synonyms used i...

4. LS v T Ltd & BU [2025] NZDT 124 (3 April 2025) [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...vehicle and are she and T Ltd entitled to the amount sought of $1,204.40. c. Is LS entitled to $500.00 expenses? Did LS breach his duty of care to other road users by not taking proper care while reversing? 11. The relevant law is the law of negligence. Drivers must take care not to drive in a manner that causes damage to another vehicle. The standard is that of a reasonably prudent driver. The Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 (“LTR”) explains the rules that all drivers...

5. GQ v SJ [2017] NZDT 1169 (8 March 2017) [pdf, 68 KB]

   ...reasonable? Has Miss SJ been negligent in the care of her child? [3] Mr GQ has brought a claim against Miss SJ for the alleged actions of her son. The law states that a parent is not responsible for torts committed by their child, in the absence of negligence on the parent’s part for the negligence of their child. In other words a parent who has negligently failed to properly supervise their child may be personally liable for the torts committed by that child. So for Mr GQ to p...

6. EM v EN [2024] NZDT 395 (28 May 2024) [pdf, 88 KB]

   ...by a give way sign. In accordance with Rule 4.1 Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, EN had an obligation to give way to all oncoming traffic on [road 1] before exiting [road 2]. As EN failed to give way to oncoming traffic, I find her liable in negligence for losses incurred in the accident. Have the losses been proven? 5. In the event of loss, EM may be entitled to recover the cost of repairs, or the value of the vehicle, whichever is the lesser amount. 6. EM provided an es...

7. KG v TM [2020] NZDT 1416 (12 August 2020) [pdf, 213 KB]

   ...APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) LMN Ltd The Tribunal orders: TM is to pay $4380.37 to LMN Ltd on or before 2 September 2020; and the counter-claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. KG and TM were the drivers involved in a minor motor vehicle collision as KG was turning left into the driveway of her workplace (TC, near the airport) at 3.30am. 2. TM had been travelling behind KG and says that KG crossed the centre line, moving right to the other side of the roa...

8. OO v SL [2024] NZDT 196 (19 January 2024) [pdf, 105 KB]

   ...them, even if that car stops suddenly (Rule 5.9(3) Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004). 7. Having considered all the evidence before me, I find it more likely than not on the balance of probabilities, that SL breached his duty of care and was negligent because he failed to stop short of OO’s vehicle and caused the collision that damaged her car. This is because I accept OO’s version of events, and the evidence presented that was consistent with her submission. This included oral...

9. FD v TN & N Ltd [2024] NZDT 30 (25 January 2024) [pdf, 148 KB]

   ...the hospital, he was assessed, admitted and discharged two days later. 4. The applicant/J Ltd claim $4078.56, being the losses suffered as a result of FD’s car being uneconomic to repair. 5. The issues to be determined are: • Did TN’s negligence cause the collision with FD’s car? • If so, does the amount claimed represent the reasonable losses suffered? Did TN’s negligence cause the collision with FD’s car? 6. All drivers owe a duty of care to other road use...

10. DD Ltd & MH Ltd v EJ Ltd [2017] NZDT 1558 (6 March 2017) [pdf, 120 KB]

    ...and to continue with the hearing on 15 February 2017. I note that this is the seventh time this matter has been before a Tribunal or the District Court. Was SC negligent in turning in these circumstances? 7. The relevant law is the law of negligence. Drivers must take care not to drive in a manner that causes damage to another vehicle. In particular, when approaching a t-junction (also known as a “T-Intersection”) and preparing to turn right, a driver must take care to ensu...