Search Results

1. 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...

2. 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...

3. 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...

4. 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....

5. BX v HL [2024] NZDT 372 (13 June 2024) [pdf, 134 KB]

   ...and did not want to take part in the hearing. 7. BX is seeking $25,000.00 by way of compensation for the damage to his car. 8. The issues the Tribunal has to consider are: a. Did HL breach his duty of care to other road users by driving negligently? b. If yes, is HL liable to BX in the amount sought of $25,000.00 or any other lesser amount? Did HL breach his duty of care to other road users by driving negligently? 9. The relevant law is the law of negligence. Driver...

6. MQ v NP [2023] NZDT 352 (7 August 2023) [pdf, 176 KB]

   ...3. NP on the other hand submits that there is no evidence that he was not driving carefully and responsibly and that the dog must have run in front of him. That the dog was not killed but was injured indicates he was not speeding or otherwise negligent in the operation of his vehicle. The cause of the injuries to the dog was it’s being allowed to run free and not under control on the property. 4. The issues to be decided then are whether NP was negligent in the operation of his v...

7. RS v GT Limited [2019] NZDT 1398 (22 May 2019) [pdf, 230 KB]

   ...workplace] when the barrier arm adjacent to the guard hut at the exit lowered onto the roof of his car causing damage along its length. 2. RS claims the cost of repairs, being $1948.10, on the basis that the guard, an employee of GT Limited was negligent in manually lowering the barrier arm as his vehicle was passing. 3. GT Limited did not attend the hearing – I note that they were served via substituted service to their email address (above [redacted]) on 8 May 2019. 4. The is...

8. LI v KC [2025] NZDT 115 (26 February 2025) [pdf, 193 KB]

   ...cause the damage to LI’s vehicle by failing to take reasonable care? (b) If so, are the costs claimed by X Ltd and LI reasonable? Did KC cause the damage to LI’s vehicle 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. The Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 (“LTR”) explains the rules that all drivers must abide by in New Zealand. 6. Rule 5.9(3) of the...

9. FM Ltd v TN [2017] NZDT 1005 (26 April 2017) [pdf, 113 KB]

   ...with the care expected of the ordinary prudent driver. [19] I note that TNN Ltd has not claimed for its costs as there was minimal damage sustained to the truck. What are the reasonable costs of repair to Mr FM’s van? [20] As I have found no negligence proven on the part of Mr TN, this issue does not need to be addressed, and the claim is dismissed against both respondents.

10. TD v EX [2024] NZDT 137 (31 January 2024) [pdf, 194 KB]

    ...going to turn right. EX should have carefully checked that other road users around her were aware of her new intention and not were not already proceeding based on her prior indication, as TD was. 6. A finding of liability requires a finding of negligence. 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 adjacent property owners. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order...