Search Results

1. 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...

2. 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...

3. 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...

4. 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.

5. 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...

6. QG v BE [2024] NZDT 96 (13 February 2024) [pdf, 189 KB]

   ...c. Did QG allow BE to drive his vehicle? If so, should any liability be apportioned to him? d. What loss has QG suffered that he is entitled to be compensated for? Did BE cause damage to QG’s property? 4. The relevant law is the tort of negligence. All persons owe a duty to other persons not to damage their property. If a person breaches that duty and causes damage to another person’s property, then they must pay the cost of putting that person back into the position they woul...

7. SD v MT [2024] NZDT 57 (19 February 2024) [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...was distracted and hit SD’s car from the rear. 2. SD and his insurer B Ltd now claim $1,484.75 in damages, comprising the cost of repairs to the [vehicle]n of $1,326.05 and rental costs of $158.70. There were no uninsured losses. 3. The tort of negligence requires payment of compensation 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 Transpor...

8. LI Ltd v OZ [2022] NZDT 34 (30 March 2022) [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...(Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 34 APPLICANT LI Ltd RESPONDENT OZ The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. On or about 1 July 2020 a vehicle driven by OZ suffered a blown tyre and left the road at [location], entered the rail corridor, travelled over the tracks, and collided with a residential fence. 2. LI Ltd (LI LTD) attended the scene and found the vehicle abandoned with...

9. BT v U Ltd [2024] NZDT 574 (30 July 2024) [pdf, 175 KB]

   ...gave a rather harrowing description of his efforts to reach the workshop (after an alarm activation alerted him to flooding which was visible by remote camera), in which the floodwater reached a depth of 1.3 metres (photos provided). U Ltd’s own vehicles as well as customer vehicles were written off as a result of the event. 3. While BT’s written submissions address various arguments regarding U Ltd’s alleged breach of duty of care, and he referenced a news report giving details...

10. CS v XI & XIX 2014 NZDT 798 (27 February 2014) [pdf, 115 KB]

    ...while driving? [3] On balance I find the First Respondent failed to take sufficient care while driving. I am not satisfied the Second Respondent failed to take sufficient care or contributed to the collision. [4] The relevant law is the law of negligence. Negligence concerns the duties that one person owes another to take care. If one person breaches a duty that he or she owes to another and causes damage to the other’s property as a result, then the person who has breached...