An exemplification of the relationship of proximity which provides particular assistance in dealing with the problems that this case presents is to be found in Cook v. Cook. There, an inexperienced and unlicensed driver, the defendant, was invited by the plaintiff to drive a car in which the plaintiff travelled as a passenger. The defendant, in seeking to avoid a parked vehicle, accelerated and lost control of the car so that it mounted the footpath and crashed into a concrete pole, causing injury to the plaintiff. Mason, Wilson, Deane and Dawson JJ., in their joint judgment, recognized that, where there is ordinarily a relationship of proximity between driver and passenger, the standard of care is that reasonably to be expected of an experienced, competent driver. Then the standard is objective and is not modified or extended by the driving history or ability of the particular driver. Their Honours went on to point out [33] that special and exceptional circumstances, such as those of that case, may transform the relationship between a driver and a particular passenger into a special or different class or category of relationship. It follows that the onus of establishing the existence of facts giving rise to a relationship of such a special or different category under which it would be unreasonable to fix the duty of care owed by a driver by reference to the ordinary standard of care lies on the party who asserts it [34] . Likewise, the onus lies on the party who asserts that, by reason of special and exceptional facts, the ordinary relationship of a driver towards a passenger is transformed into one which lacks the requisite relationship of proximity to give rise to a relevant duty of care.