Search Results

1. LC Ltd v XU Ltd [2024] NZDT 356 (21 May 2024) [pdf, 177 KB]

   ...to provide the footage as they considered it would not be helpful under the circumstances. 3. I am satisfied that LC Ltd were told where to park by BE, and that no specific timeframe for the unloading of tools was given. Is XU Ltd liable in negligence for the damage caused to LC Ltd’s vehicle? 4. The general law of negligence applies. Where damage has been caused to property, the conduct of the party responsible is culpable because it falls short of what a reasonable person w...

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

   ...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. 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 a...

3. NG v CG [2024] NZDT 343 (26 April 2024) [pdf, 145 KB]

   ...corner’ as he entered [Road 1]? b. Did NG contribute to the crash with negligent action? c. Is the amount claimed fair and reasonable? Did the crash and damage occur because CG ‘cut the corner’ as he entered [Road 1]? 5. Under the law of negligence all drivers owe other road users a duty of care and in this case, other property owners. The duty of care requires drivers to drive to the standard of a CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 reasonable and prudent driver. This sta...

4. IU v TS [2023] NZDT 585 (8 November 2023) [pdf, 164 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 585 APPLICANT IU RESPONDENT TS APPLICANT'S INSURER JK Ltd The Tribunal orders: TS is to pay directly to JK Ltd the sum of $10,507.46 on or before 29 November 2023 or such further time as agreed by IU’s insurer. JK Ltd is to refund to the applicant $400, the insurance excess from the first monies received, o

5. DT v VG [2016] NZDT 939 (23 March 2016) [pdf, 125 KB]

   ...extending almost the entire left side of her car. This shows that the cars impacted entirely side-on, and given the narrow width of the lanes at this point of the motorway, it is not possible for a side impact to have occurred if both vehicles had still been partially occupying the same lane. [7] VG was not entirely clear at the hearing whether he had fully left the lane or not and he has provided a statement from his brother with whom he was travelling, but as I note...

6. NI v CT [2020] NZDT 1382 (14 May 2020) [pdf, 206 KB]

   ...the loss by NI a foreseeable loss? CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 Has FM Limited acted with a standard of care expected of a reasonable farmer? 4. The relevant law is section 5 of the Animals Law Reform Act 1989 and the law of negligence. When determining negligence, the Tribunal must consider the standard of care expected of a reasonable farmer in the company’s position, the common practice in the locality in relation to fencing and the taking of other measures to p...

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

   ...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 side of the road at the time...

8. TI v K Ltd [2024] NZDT 457 (24 May 2024) [pdf, 162 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 2 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 457 APPLICANT TI RESPONDENT K Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is withdrawn. Reasons: 1. After receiving an explanation and clarification of K Ltd’s actions from K Ltd (as supported by the written decision of the [Financial Institution] dated 11/10/23) TI choose to withdraw his claim. 2. In short, K Ltd was of the opinion that althoug

9. ADZ v ZVZ [2010] NZDT 245 (3 November 2010) [pdf, 86 KB]

   ...hypoglycaemic episode. ZVZ was unable to control his vehicle, which drifted left and collided with the Applicant (ADZ)’s, vehicle which was parked on the side of the road. Law [2] I find that the above claim is governed by the tort of negligence and section 8 of the Land Transport Act 1998. [3] Section 8 of the Land Transport Act 1998 states: A person may not drive a vehicle, or cause a vehicle to be driven, carelessly or without reasonable consideration for other...

10. IH & KH v B Ltd [2024] NZDT 820 (21 October 2024) [pdf, 92 KB]

    ...claim, it must also be shown the damage arose from a negligent act. 5. Returning to the car example. If your parked car is struck by another car driving along the road the driver of the car would only be liable if the collision was due to their negligence. If they drove over a large nail that caused their tyre to immediately deflate and thereby losing control and hitting the parked car it would be difficult to say they were negligent and therefore unlikely to be liable for damage to th...