Search Results

1. QH & TH v SR [2023] NZDT 696 (21 December 2023) [pdf, 177 KB]

   ...reasonable and prudent driver is to go forward very slowly, poking the nose of the car out until it is possible to see whether anyone is coming along. It is not enough to simply assume that the right lane will be clear. I find no evidence of contributory negligence on the part of the applicant’s driver. What are the reasonable costs of remedy? [7] The applicant claims the cost of repair $7,261 and has supplied evidence to the respondent and the Tribunal supporting this claim. T...

2. CK & QK v XL [2024] NZDT 265 (25 January 2024) [pdf, 177 KB]

   ...entitled to claim $6,995.00 compensation? Did XL breach its duty to take reasonable care to prevent foreseeable incidents on [highway] by failing to sweep loose chip off the road and failing to warn road users to slow down? 3. QK claims that the negligent actions of XL resulted in damage to her car. To succeed in a claim of negligence, QK must prove that: a) XL owed a duty of care to her to take reasonable precautions to prevent harm to her car, and b) that XL failed to take rea...

3. QN v UN [2024] NZDT 197 (8 April 2024) [pdf, 99 KB]

   ...claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. On 15 November 2023, QN went to UN to buy 2 half wine barrels that were on special. QN enlisted the help of a young male staff member of slight build to assist him in selecting, carrying the barrels to QN’s vehicle and loading them into the back. It was agreed they needed to be stacked to fit into the vehicle. 2. Apparently, the edge of the bottom barrel was not fully on the floor of the SUV vehicle and it slipped down on QN’s side and scra...

4. Evidence - Traffic - Minister for Children - Samantha McCarthy - Final [pdf, 238 KB]

   ...traffic to be low. These volumes represent less than 2% of the respective peak hour and 1% of the daily volumes on Weymouth Road, where the variance was found to be up to 10% across a week. 1.6. Such volumes are unlikely to be noticeable, with negligible adverse effects expected on the safety or efficiency of either the site access or Weymouth Road. 1.7. To assess potential car parking demand, I considered the maximum staffing level for the aforementioned future scenario alon...

5. IB v ED [2024] NZDT 95 (21 February 2024) [pdf, 140 KB]

   ...providing evidence to support his assertion. Did ED fail to take reasonable care resulting in damage to IB’s vehicle? If so, what was the damage caused and what is a reasonable cost to repair that damage? 7. 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 wo...

6. BT v PO Ltd [2022] NZDT 80 (12 January 2022) [pdf, 179 KB]

   ...District Court [2022] NZDT 80 APPLICANT BT RESPONDENT PO Ltd The Tribunal orders: BT’s claim against PO Ltd is dismissed. Reasons 1. On 16 August 2021, BT contacted PO Ltd and enquired about having an airbag light issue in his vehicle repaired. He was given an estimate over the phone of $500.00 for the job. On 17 August 2021, BT dropped his car off to the PO Ltd site and handed his keys to WB, the Site Manager. that afternoon, the government announced that NZ was...

7. MD v EQ [2024] NZDT 592 (5 September 2024) [pdf, 184 KB]

   ...is most likely at fault for the collision? b. Is the amount claimed, by either the applicant to the claim or the applicant to the counter claim, reasonable? Who is most likely at fault for the collision? 4. The relevant law is the law of negligence. Negligence concerns the duties that one person owes another to take care, including the duty not to cause damage, destruction, or loss to another person’s property. For the respondent to be shown to be negligent, it must be showed t...

8. SU & WH v BT [2024] NZDT 79 (26 February 2024) [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...GST. 3. The issues to be determined are: a. Was BT responsible for the collision? b. If so, what are the reasonable costs associated with the collision that she ought to pay? Was BT responsible for the collision? 4. Under 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 sets out the rules that drivers must obey. Rule 2.1 provides that unless that rule provides otherwise, dri...

9. S Ltd v OB [2024] NZDT 226 (20 March 2024) [pdf, 119 KB]

   ...had been driving too close to the cars, it likely would have hit the rear of his car. With his vehicle parked on the angle it was, the bus had to drive further away from the line of parked cars than it otherwise would have. Were OB’s actions negligent? 6. 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 a duty of care to all other road users. Here, although OB’s car was parked at the...

10. L Ltd v NO [2024] NZDT 113 (23 January 2024) [pdf, 174 KB]

    ...$33,000.00. The claim is for $26,361.95, comprised of the pre-accident value of $33,000.00, plus towing and salvage costs of $793.50, and less the sale price of the wreck of $7,383.25. Did NO cause the collision? 3. The relevant law is the law of negligence. Drivers must take care not to drive in a way that causes damage to other vehicles or property. The Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 (“LTR”) explains the rules that apply to all drivers. Rules 2.3(1)(b) and (2)(b) LTR...