Novex also submits that this “existing” or “established”
duty of care was recognized in Colebank v. Kropinske, 
B.C.J. No. 688, 2002 BCSC 436. The circumstances in Colebank
were unusual as described in para. 2:
The circumstances are somewhat unusual. The plaintiff and the defendant,
Daniel Kropinske, who was then 22 years old, were romantically involved.
They had travelled from their home in Salmon Arm on the afternoon of May
27th to Vernon. Between approximately 3:30 p.m. on the 27th and midnight
on the 28th, the plaintiff drank five or six bottles of beer and five or six cool-
ers. Moreover, she shared two joints of marijuana with the defendant.
On leaving Vernon to begin the homeward trip to Salmon Arm, the plaintiff
refused to put her seatbelt on. This was not the first time that she had done
so. During the course of the journey, the defendant says that the plaintiff told
him, “I bet you I could jump out of this car, roll, and walk home.” On several
occasions, the plaintiff asked the defendant to stop the car and let her out.
The defendant refused to do so because of the real risk to her safety if she
were alone on or near a highway, in the middle of the night, and intoxicated.
The defendant continued to drive at approximately 90 kilometres per hour
and closely watched the plaintiff. When he saw her put her hand on the door
handle, he told her to stop. Approximately two minutes later, the plaintiff
opened the door and leaned out. The defendant grabbed her and pulled her
back into the vehicle. The plaintiff first pushed her weight onto the defendant
and then reversed the force of her movement toward and outside the door
such that her head, one leg, and half of her body were out the door of the car.
The defendant had a grip on her arm and for an instant, the plaintiff seemed
to recognize her peril when she told the defendant, “Please don’t let go.”
However, the defendant lost his grip with the result that the plaintiff fell out.
He immediately stopped, backed up, picked up the plaintiff, and took her to
 The plaintiff in Colebank relied on Cory J.’s statement in
Galaske, at 686 S.C.R.:
The driver of a car is in a position of control . . . Coexistent with the right to
drive and control a car is the responsibility of the driver to take reasonable
steps to provide for the safety of passengers. Those reasonable steps must
include not only the duty to drive carefully but also to see that seat belts a
re worn by young passengers who may not be responsible for ensuring their
 It should be noted that this passage was taken from the
Cory J.’s section entitled “The Duty Owed by a Driver to Ensure
that Passengers Under 16 Wear Seat Belts” and after Cory J. had
concluded that a driver, accepting children as passengers, must
accept some responsibility for the safety of those children.
 There are other significantly distinguishing aspects in the
Colebank facts. See para. 17:
I find the defendant knew or should have known of the risk that the plain-
tiff would impetuously exit the car while it was moving. He failed to discharge
his statutory duty to ensure that she was seatbelted (although I accept that