Search Results

1. DQ v BH [2024] NZDT 810 (15 November 2024) [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...repair assessment form that PAV is $2750.00. An ‘agreed value’ for insurance purposes is not necessarily the same as a market value, and it is market value just prior to the collision that is used for an accurate measure of damages resulting from negligence. The damages are intended to restore the party who has suffered loss to the position they were in prior to the negligent act. 3. J Ltd obtained a registered valuation which states the PAV for DQ’s vehicle is $6000.00. 4....

2. TI v OG Ltd [2022] NZDT 107 (5 September 2022) [pdf, 85 KB]

   ...hazards created by large vehicles using narrow, winding, unsealed country roads in Northland (and other parts of the country). 13. However, I can only address this specific claim, and I can only approach it from a civil law perspective. The law of negligence applies. There is no general duty of care on logging trucks (or tankers, or other large vehicles) to have pilot vehicles. Such an extension on the duty of care would impose significant costs on those operators. 14. My fin...

3. BX and ABC Ltd v YC [2014] NZDT 602 (3 March 2014) [pdf, 129 KB]

   ...User) Rule 2004 Issue [3] Whether one or both of the drivers failed to take reasonable care not to cause foreseeable damage or injury to another person or its property. Findings [4] YC claims that his view of traffic following the left turning vehicles ahead of BX was blocked by those vehicles and that he did not see him approaching. He claims that BX was using the median strip to overtake the left turning vehicles at the right on the intersection and that this is an unauthorise...

4. DT v VG [2016] NZDT 939 (23 March 2016) [pdf, 125 KB]

   ...to VG’s vehicle being on the right-hand side, including to the right-hand mirror. Issues [5] The issues to determine are:. a. Did VG complete a lane change to the left before moving back into his original lane? b. If so, is VG liable in negligence for the damage to DT’s car? c. Did DT’s actions contribute to the impact occurring? d. What are DT’s reasonable losses? Did VG complete a lane change to the left before moving back into his original lane? [6] I find that VG...

5. EI v TB [2020] NZDT 401 (19 March 2020) [pdf, 130 KB]

   ...making his right turn; (c) if TB is liable to pay to the whole or any part of the amount claimed; and (d) if EI is liable to pay the whole or any part the amount claimed. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 [5] The relevant law is the law of negligence and the Land Transport (Road User) Rule (2004) (RUR). Negligence concerns the duty that a person owes another to take care. A driver is negligent if they breach a duty they owe to another driver and cause damage as a result. In suc...

6. EI v TB [2020] NZDT 1699 (19 March 2020) [pdf, 189 KB]

   ...making his right turn; (c) if TB is liable to pay to the whole or any part of the amount claimed; and (d) if EI is liable to pay the whole or any part the amount claimed. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 [5] The relevant law is the law of negligence and the Land Transport (Road User) Rule (2004) (RUR). Negligence concerns the duty that a person owes another to take care. A driver is negligent if they breach a duty they owe to another driver and cause damage as a result. In suc...

7. QD Ltd v SI [2023] NZDT 559 (17 November 2023) [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...before and during his reversing manoeuvre? b. Is the quantum of $4543.05 claimed by QD Ltd, and its insurer reasonable? Did SI check the space behind him was clear before and during his reversing manoeuvre? 3. The relevant law is the law of negligence relating to damage to property. A finding of negligence requires that there is a duty of care, a breach of that duty, and damage as a direct result of that breach. All drivers have a duty to take care not to damage other vehicles or...

8. KB v TG [2024] NZDT 800 (28 November 2024) [pdf, 101 KB]

   ...Reasons: 1. KB, his insurer representative, QL, and TG, along with his parents as support people, all attended the teleconference hearing. 2. On 10 June 2024, KB and TG were involved in a collision at [Road 1] and [Street 2], . 3. KB claims that his vehicle was a write off. The claim was originally for $9,207.76, which was amended during the hearing to $9,075.51. The amended claim for $9,075.51 includes the pre- accident value of $10,694.00 plus towing costs of $456.51, and less the...

9. BO & UO v KQ & Ors [2024] NZDT 149 (12 April 2024) [pdf, 193 KB]

   ...were in before the collision? Has KQ breached his duty of care to follow at such a speed that he stopped a full car length when the car in front stopped and this breach has caused damage to the three vehicles in front of him? 5. The law of negligence and Section 5.9(3) of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 apply in this situation. A finding of negligence requires that there be a duty of care, a breach of that duty and damage as a direct result of that breach. All drivers owe...

10. SC v NI [2017] NZDT 1675 (11 December 2017) [pdf, 187 KB]

    ...care; (b) whether SC contributed to the collision occurring by failing to take sufficient care; (c) if NI is liable to pay the amount claimed by SC; and (d) if SC is liable to pay the amount claimed by NI. [4] The relevant law is the law of negligence and the Land Transport (Road User) Rule (Rules). Negligence concerns the duty that a person owes another to take care. A driver is negligent if they breach a duty they owe to another person and that person suffers a loss as a result....