Search Results

1. D Ltd v AB [2023] NZDT 473 (15 September 2023) [pdf, 176 KB]

   ...damage to the [vehicle 1], including uninsured losses of $2,640.99. 3. The issues to be determined are: a) Who was responsible for the collision? b) What sum, if any, is AB liable to pay? Who was responsible for the collision? 4. 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...

2. EM v EN [2024] NZDT 395 (28 May 2024) [pdf, 88 KB]

   ...by a give way sign. In accordance with Rule 4.1 Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, EN had an obligation to give way to all oncoming traffic on [road 1] before exiting [road 2]. As EN failed to give way to oncoming traffic, I find her liable in negligence for losses incurred in the accident. Have the losses been proven? 5. In the event of loss, EM may be entitled to recover the cost of repairs, or the value of the vehicle, whichever is the lesser amount. 6. EM provided an es...

3. 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.

4. BI v ID [2024] NZDT 806 (13 September 2024) [pdf, 113 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 806 APPLICANT BI RESPONDENT ID The Tribunal orders: 1. ID is to pay BI the sum of $12,368.98.00 in full, on or before 5pm Monday 21 October 2024. Reasons: 2. BI said that in May 2023, he was driving along [Street] in [Suburb] heading towards the city with his friend S, when ID who was driving a white van along BI’s inside lane, sudd

5. ABQ and ABR v ZYO [2013] NZDT 56 (5 June 2013) [pdf, 83 KB]

   ...costs to ABQ’s car? [4] The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims based in contract and in tort. A tort is a civil wrong. Claims in tort can be heard by the Tribunal in respect of the destruction, loss, damage to or recovery of property. Negligence is the relevant tort relating to this claim. Negligence concerns the duties 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. [5] In de...

6. KC Ltd v OK [2019] NZDT 1378 (17 July 2019) [pdf, 268 KB]

   ...damage under the terms of the contract with KC? • What amounts, if any, are owed on the claim and counter-claim? CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 What was the cause of the clutch failure? 6. I find that Mr K drove the vehicle in a manner that caused premature failure of the clutch. Mr K contends that there may have been pre-existing damage to the clutch and points out that the condition of the clutch at the beginning of his hire is unknown. He says he did no...

7. ABT Ltd v ZYJ Ltd [2013] NZDT 71 (5 June 2013) [pdf, 75 KB]

   ...[15] For the above reasons, I find the driver for ZYJ Ltd drove negligently when exiting ABT’s building. As the driver was an agent of ZYJ Ltd undertaking business for ZYJ Ltd at the time, ZYJ Ltd is vicariously liable for the driver’s negligence. Does the exclusion clause between the customer and ZYJ Ltd apply to ABT Ltd? [16] An exclusion clause may apply if one party to a contract brings the exclusion clause to the notice of the other party. [17] The exclusi...

8. JT & JB Ltd v SN [2021] NZDT 1582 (16 July 2021) [pdf, 197 KB]

   ...stated that he was travelling in the right lane to make a right turn to Newtown. He said that SN was in the left lane and he changed lanes and hit the left front of the taxi. Findings about what happened 10. For a finding about negligence the Tribunal must first make a finding about the facts of the case. The standard of proof is the balance of probability. There must be more certainty than doubt about what happened. 11. The damage that resulted from the co...

9. 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...

10. DD Ltd & MH Ltd v EJ Ltd [2017] NZDT 1558 (6 March 2017) [pdf, 120 KB]

    ...and to continue with the hearing on 15 February 2017. I note that this is the seventh time this matter has been before a Tribunal or the District Court. Was SC negligent in turning in these circumstances? 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. In particular, when approaching a t-junction (also known as a “T-Intersection”) and preparing to turn right, a driver must take care to ensu...