No Statutory Negligence Found in Golf Cart Accident
by
Joseph C. Maya on Apr. 12, 2017
Accident & Injury Accident & Injury Car Accident Accident & Injury Personal Injury
Summary: Information on a case where statutory negligence was not found in a golf cart accident.
Passenger's statutory counts for injury from falling out of golf cart on street were dismissed against his employer and cart owner, but negligence counts remained against driver and owner, as fact issues remained.
Defendant golf cart driver moved for summary judgment in plaintiff passenger's negligence counts; defendant school, who was employer of plaintiff and defendant driver, moved for summary judgment in plaintiff's Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-556 count; and defendant golf cart owner moved for summary judgment in plaintiff's Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-154a and negligence counts.
Plaintiff was a passenger in a golf cart driven by defendant driver, owned by defendant owner, which was traveling on a public street. Plaintiff was thrown off the cart and injured. Both plaintiff and defendant driver were employed by defendant school. Defendant school's summary judgment motion on the Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-556count was granted, because a golf cart was not a motor vehicle under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-1 as lacking characteristics of motor vehicle. Defendant driver's summary judgment motion on negligence counts was denied, because fact issues remained as to whether the injuries arose during employment such that Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-293a would allow plaintiff workers compensation and deny his suit against a fellow employee. Defendant driver's defense that a golf cart was not a motor vehicle under the § 14-212 negligence count was not allowed. Under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-212 a golf cart was a motor vehicle. Defendant owner's summary judgment motion was granted as to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-154a counts, because the golf cart was not a motor vehicle under § 14-1 as suitable for driving on a highway.
Defendant driver's motion denied because of fact issues of whether plaintiff's injuries arose from employment; defendant employer's motion was granted because, under the statute, golf carts were not vehicles; defendant owner's statutory motion was granted because, under the statute in the count, golf carts were not vehicles. The negligence motion was denied, and negligent entrustment did not rely on motor vehicle definition.
Source: Kelly v. Ron’s Gold Rental, 2000 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1387 (Conn. Super. Ct. May 26, 2000)
