Florida Golf Cart Owners Should Beware of Huge Potential Liability

July/August 2024 | © 2024 Nelson & Nelson, P.A.

By Barry A. Nelson and Cassandra S. Nelson

As published in: The Florida Bar Journal, July/August 2024.

This Florida Bar Journal column is submitted on behalf of the Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Section, Sarah Swaim Butters, chair, and Allison Archbold and Homer Duvall, editors.

Introduction

A recent Miami-Dade trial court case resulted in a $50 million award following a catastrophic golf cart accident involving a 12-year-old passenger. The legal implications centered around negligent entrustment and the concept of dangerous instrumentality. Insurance disputes with GEICO further complicated the case. This article outlines those legal risks and urges golf cart owners to review their insurance coverage and liability exposure under Florida law.

Liability as Golf Cart Owner

The case Gonzalez v. Chiong found that the owner of a golf cart may be held liable if they negligently entrust the vehicle to another person. The trial court ruled that the owner owed a duty of care, breached that duty, and was thus liable for the injuries sustained in the accident.

Theories of Liability

Florida courts recognize two main theories of liability in these cases: (1) negligent entrustment, and (2) the dangerous instrumentality doctrine, which imposes vicarious liability regardless of negligence if the owner voluntarily entrusted the vehicle.

Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine

Under Florida law, golf carts are classified as dangerous instrumentalities. The Florida Supreme Court has ruled that this designation applies even when a vehicle is operated on private property. This means owners can be held strictly liable for the actions of others who operate their golf carts with permission.

Liability Cap

Florida Statute §324.021(9)(b)3 outlines liability caps for “motor vehicles,” but golf carts may not qualify if they are not designed for or required to be licensed on highways. Consequently, owners of golf carts could face unlimited financial liability if an accident occurs.

Example 1: Father Loans Golf Cart to Son

If a father loans a golf cart to his adult son, who then causes an accident, the father’s liability may be unlimited because the vehicle is not covered by the statute’s cap.

Example 2: Father Loans Automobile to Son

If the same father loans an automobile instead, his liability would be capped under §324.021.

Takeaways, Uncertainties, and Suggestions

Limit Users

Golf cart owners should restrict use to licensed and responsible drivers to limit liability exposure.

Amend Statute

Legislators should consider revising §324.021(1) to include golf carts under the liability cap provisions.

Review Insurance

Owners should ensure their auto, homeowners, and umbrella policies explicitly cover golf cart accidents. Lack of clarity or coverage could expose owners to significant liability.

Avoid Co-ownership

If a golf cart is co-owned by spouses, both may be liable. Transferring ownership to a single individual (e.g., the primary user) and documenting that ownership can help limit liability exposure.

Conclusion

The Chiong case should serve as a wake-up call. With judgments exceeding $68 million in that matter, Florida golf cart owners must proactively protect their assets through liability insurance and prudent ownership strategies.

For additional details, see Asset Protection in Florida (7th ed. 2022), and Estate Planning and Asset Protection in Florida (2019).

Disclaimer: This information is for educational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Consult with your attorney, CPA, or financial advisor before taking action. No warranties or guarantees are provided regarding the legal sufficiency or appropriateness of this information.