policy reasons why this duty should not be recognized. See
Childs, at para. 13.
Does a taxi cab driver owe a duty of care to ensure visibly
intoxicated passengers are seat belted?
 There are certain indisputable facts known (or should be
known) to all adult passengers, who get into a vehicle cab:
(a) being a passenger in a vehicle always carries with it a risk of
an accident and consequent injury, which accident is not nec-
essarily dependent on the negligence of the driver;
(b) a passenger who does not wear a seat belt, may/will likely
suffer more serious injuries if the vehicle is an accident; and
(c) every adult passenger in a vehicle has a legal duty to wear
a seat belt.
 The facts in this case include [the following]:
(a) it was readily apparent to Mr. Yaxley, when he arrived to pick
up the adult passengers, that Mr. Stewart was highly intoxi-
cated when he got into the taxi cab;
(b) Mr. Yaxley took no active steps to ensure that Mr. Stewart
was seat belted when he left the restaurant/bar;
(c) Mr. Stewart was seat belted when he left the restaurant/bar;
(d) Mr. Yaxley took no steps during the fare to the destination to
ensure that Mr. Stewart remained buckled during the fare;
(e) Mr. Stewart was not seat belted when the MVA occurred; and
(f) there is no evidence as to when or how Mr. Stewart came to
be unbuckled before the MVA.
 As the alleged duty has not previously been recognized in
Canada, an Anns v. Merton London Borough Council,  A.C.
728,  UKHL 4 (H.L.) analysis (as refined in Cooper v. Hobart,
 3 S.C.R. 537,  S.C.J. No. 76, 2001 SCC 79)) is required.
 The three requirements for the finding of a duty of
(a) reasonable foreseeability;
(b) sufficient proximity; and
(c) the absence of overriding policy considerations which negate
a prima facie duty established by foreseeability and proximity.