care should not be recognized” (para. 37). In this way, the residual policy
inquiry is a normative inquiry. It asks whether it would be better, for reasons
relating to legal or doctrinal order, or reasons arising from other societal concerns, not to recognize a duty of care in a given case.
I. The law already imposes a duty on adult passengers to buckle in any vehicle
 The provincial legislature has already seen fit to impose
a duty on adult passengers, and not drivers, to buckle their seat
belts when they are in a vehicle. There are no exceptions, no
limitations in the provisions of the Highway Traffic Act. The legislature expressly chose not to include a provision to make
the drivers responsible that all adult passengers buckle their
 Imposition of a common law duty as suggested would be
inconsistent with what the provincial legislature, the representatives of the public, have chosen to impose at law.
 The common law also recognizes a duty on adult passengers to buckle their seat belts when they are in a vehicle. See
Galaske. Consistent with this common law duty, contributory
negligence is usually found on adult passengers who fail to buckle
their seat belt in an MVA.
 Adult passengers have the right not to buckle their seat
belts when they get into a taxi cab. They run the risk that, if
an accident occurs and they are injured, their damages will be
reduced because of their contributory negligence.
 There is a common sense inconsistency that passengers
who are contributorily negligent for not buckling their seat belt
can nevertheless point to the driver for not ensuring that they
buckle the seat belt.
II. No valid societal reason to transfer the duty of
care in these circumstances
 There is no dispute that a taxi cab driver owes no duty of
care to an adult passenger who is not intoxicated.
 Imposing the duty of care on the taxi driver for an adult
intoxicated passenger would amount to a unilateral transfer of
the adult passenger’s statutory and common law duty of care to
buckle his seat belt to a taxi cab driver. Worst, this unilateral
transfer of responsibility to the taxi cab driver only arises as
a result of the self-induced intoxication of the adult passenger.
 No reasonable basis has been advanced by Novex why
this transfer of responsibility should take place aside from the
vulnerability of the intoxicated adult.