Search Results

1. IB v IY [2016] NZDT 1407 (25 Feburary 2016) [pdf, 96 KB]

   ...for the estimated cost of repairs to her car. 3. The issues to be determined are: a) Who was responsible for the collision? b) What sum, if any, is IY liable to pay? Who was responsible for the collision? 4. The relevant law is the tort of negligence, which applies 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 Transport Act 1988 and the...

2. AGB and AGC v ZVU [2013] NZDT 398 (1 May 2013) [pdf, 82 KB]

   ...prudent precautions would not have prevented the plywood from being blown from the trailer? Decision Did ZVU take all reasonable and prudent precautions to ensure that his trailer load was secure? [4] The relevant law is the law of negligence. When operating a vehicle on the road, drivers must act in accordance with a standard of care. Whether the standard has been breached is decided by asking whether in all the circumstances of the case, what should the reasonable...

3. ADD v ZWX [2013] NZDT 190 (15 May 2013) [pdf, 63 KB]

   IN THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2013] NZDT 190 BETWEEN ADD APPLICANT AND HU Insurance Ltd APPLICANT’S INSURER AND ZWX RESPONDENT Date of Order: 15 May 2013 Referee: Referee Avia ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that ZWX is to pay HU Insurance Ltd $2,280.43 on or before Wednesday 5 June 2013. Facts [1] On 28 February 2012 at about 7.20pm, the two parties had

4. KC & JBH Ltd v MK [2022] NZDT 79 (24 January 2022) [pdf, 98 KB]

   ...other road users by failing to give way to BC? b. Are the costs sought of $3,197.85 reasonable and is MK liable for them? Did MK breach his duty of care to other road users by failing to give way to BC? 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. The standard is that of a reasonably prudent driver. The Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 (“LTR”) explains the rules that all drivers must...

5. MU v OL [2023] NZDT 698 (14 December 2023) [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...that the way was clear before attempting to continue his ‘backing’ manoeuvre. If so, what is the remedy? 18. The normal measure of damages for a claim in negligence is to restore the wronged party to the position they were in before the negligent damage occurred. 19. MU provided a copy off an estimate from [vehicle repair company] which includes labour and second hand parts to repair his damaged car. 20. I am satisfied that the estimate is justified and reasonable and is...

6. BC v TG [2021] NZDT 1636 (13 October 2021) [pdf, 105 KB]

   ...are as follows: a. Was TG responsible for the collision? b. If so, are the costs claimed reasonable to put BC back in the position he would have been had the collision not occurred. Was TG responsible for the collision? 4. Under the law of negligence all drivers owe other road users a duty of care. Drivers must take care not to drive in a manner that causes damage to another vehicle. The Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 (LTR) states the rules that all drivers must abide by in...

7. DN v NS [2024] NZDT 336 (23 May 2024) [pdf, 127 KB]

   ...time, and the matter could proceed in his absence. 4. The issues to be resolved are: a. Did NS cause damage to DN’s car? b. If so, is DN entitled to claim $3,252.34? Did NS cause damage to DN’s car? 5. The general principles of the law of negligence requires every driver to take care to drive in a manner that does not cause damage to other road user’s vehicles or property. The road user rules say that a driver must not, when road markings or traffic signs designate specific l...

8. SG v QN [2022] NZDT 253 (16 December 2023) [pdf, 173 KB]

   ...to pay? Was the crash caused by a medical event? Was QN careless in any way? 3. The tort of negligence applies when someone breaches a duty of care to another person causing foreseeable damage. Drivers have a duty of care towards people who own vehicles or other property in the vicinity, to avoid causing damage to their property. 4. Generally, if a driver hits a parked car there is an inference that the driver failed to take care. However, if a medical event caused the driver to lose c...

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

   ...bumper bar $ 2,500.00 $ 7,788.00 3. The issues to be resolved are: a. What value will restore IB to the position he was in before ED disposed of the poles? b. 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? c. Did IB’s own actions contribute to his loss of the poles and the alleged damage to his vehicle? d. Is ED entitled to any set-off for...

10. 2019 NZPSPLA 004185/2017 J Anstis [pdf, 136 KB]

    ...without prior approval? [4] Shortly prior to ceasing work for BDR Mr Anstis purchased a complete alarm kit and a camera system costing several hundred dollars for personal use on the company accounts. He also purchased petrol for his personal vehicle on a company fuel card. Mr Frost advises that standard company policy required prior approval and a purchase or stock order to be obtained for personal goods to be purchased on company accounts and Mr Anstis did neither. In addition, on...