passengers had their seat belts buckled when the taxi cab left the
 I come to the first determination because the police could
not determine whether the rear passengers were wearing seat
belts at the time of the MVA. The report from MEA Forensic
Engineering (“MEA”) could not determine whether the rear
passengers were wearing seat belts. Mr. Paquette, relying on
the police and MEA reports, came to a different conclusion on
the same issue. For the reasons set out below, I would not accept
Mr. Paquette’s opinion on this issue.
 I come to the second determination because I accept the
evidence of Elaina Stewart that she ensured and was satisfied
that all four men were buckled before the taxi cab left the restaurant/bar.
Mr. Paquette’s testimony
 Mr. Paquette is a collision reconstruction expert. Mr.
Paquette opined that Mr. Stewart was not wearing a seat belt at
the time of the MVA. This is an agreed fact in the agreement.
 As stated above, the balance of Mr. Paquette’s testimony
relates to whether the rear passengers had their seat belts buckled at the time of the MVA. This evidence does not assist on the
issue to be decided.
 In any event, I do not accept Mr. Paquette’s opinion
regarding the rear passengers. Mr. Paquette did not attend to
personally observe the taxi cab after the MVA. Mr. Paquette did
not have the benefit of going to the MVA scene to see the manner of the collision or observe what the taxi cab hit prior to sliding down the embankment. Mr. Paquette relied on photos, notes
of the police officers and an MEA forensics report. Both the
police and MEA forensics report concluded that they could not
determine whether the rear seated passengers were wearing
seat belts at the time of the MVA. Yet, Mr. Paquette appeared to
have done little or nothing to attempt to investigate how or why
the police and MEA had come to a different conclusion than he
did. Mr. Paquette relies heavily on the lack of “loading marks”
on the rear seat belts straps in the Yaxley taxi cab. Mr. Paquette
concluded that “loading marks” would be present if the seat
belts had been engaged in a severe accident such as this. Since
there are no “loading marks” on the seat belts, Mr. Paquette
concluded that the seat belts were not used by the rear passengers at the time of the accident. However, in cross-examination
Mr. Paquette admitted that the existence of “loading marks” are
conclusive that the seatbelts were used in an accident but the
non-existence of “loading marks” are not necessarily conclusive