Can an Arkansas city refuse to allow golf carts on its streets, and if it does allow them, can it require insurance and a minimum driver age?

Plain-English summary

Senator Johnny Key asked AG Dustin McDaniel three questions about A.C.A. § 14-54-1410 as amended by Act 170 of 2013. The statute lets cities pass ordinances allowing golf carts on city streets. Act 170 removed the prior limitation that capped golf cart operation to trips between the owner's residence and the golf course. The AG concluded: (1) a city has absolute discretion whether to authorize golf carts on its streets in the first place; (2) tort liability for accidents is decided under standard tort law and cannot be answered in the abstract; (3) a city that authorizes golf cart operation may also require liability insurance and set a minimum driver age, because nothing in state law conflicts with such an ordinance.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2014. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

What the AG concluded

Q1(A): Can a city refuse to consider a golf cart ordinance because its streets are not "designated for such use"?
Yes. Under A.C.A. § 14-54-1410(a), the city has absolute discretion. If the city decides golf carts on its streets are undesirable for any reason, it can simply not pass the ordinance. The AG noted he was not entirely sure what the question was asking, since the statute itself is permissive (cities "may" authorize golf carts) and contains no compulsion to consider an ordinance at all.

Q1(B): If the city must allow golf carts, who is liable in an accident?
The premise (that the city must allow golf carts) is wrong, so the conditional question does not arise. As a general matter, liability in a golf cart accident turns on standard tort principles and cannot be answered in the abstract.

Q2: Can a city require liability insurance and a minimum driver age for golf carts?
Yes. Municipalities have authority to legislate in matters of "municipal affairs" and may legislate in "state affairs" if their ordinances do not conflict with state law (Ark. Const. art. 12, § 4 and A.C.A. § 14-43-602). There is no state statute regulating golf cart insurance or operator age, so a municipal ordinance imposing such requirements does not conflict with state law and is permitted.

Common questions

Q: What did Act 170 of 2013 actually change?
It removed former A.C.A. § 14-54-1410(b), which had limited golf cart use to trips between the owner's residence and the golf course. The discretion-granting provision (subsection (a), now relabeled) remained unchanged. So after Act 170, if a city does authorize golf carts, the owner is not limited to driving to and from the golf course.

Q: Does the statute require golf carts to be registered or licensed?
No. Renumbered subsection (b) (formerly (c)) provides that when a municipality has authorized golf cart operation under the section, "there shall be no motor vehicle registration or license necessary to operate the golf cart on the public street."

Q: What kind of cities does the statute apply to?
A.C.A. § 14-54-1410(c) defines "municipality" as any city of the first class, city of the second class, or an incorporated town.

Q: Can a city only allow golf carts on certain streets and not others?
The opinion does not directly address selective street designation, but the statute's broad discretion ("absolute discretion to decide whether golf carts can be driven on those streets") and the city's general home-rule power over its own streets imply this is permissible, so long as the limitation does not conflict with general state law.

Q: Could the legislature override a city's restrictive ordinance later?
Yes. Arkansas is "a legislative home-rule state" (Nahlen v. Woods), meaning the legislature has plenary power over municipalities. Future legislation could displace local regulation, but as of this opinion no such state framework existed for golf carts.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion sat against the backdrop of three earlier AG opinions on the pre-2013 version of A.C.A. § 14-54-1410: Op. Att'y Gen. Nos. 2008-142, 2009-068, and 2009-082. Those opinions had described municipal discretion under the prior version as "extremely limited" because the statute itself capped use to residence-to-course trips. Act 170 removed that internal cap, but the AG concluded that the underlying discretion granted in subsection (a) did not change. So municipal authority is now broader in scope (no internal trip cap) but conceptually the same: cities have discretion to permit or refuse golf carts, and to add their own conditions when permitting them.

The AG framed the home-rule analysis through Arkansas's "municipal affairs" doctrine: A.C.A. § 14-43-602(a) lets cities "perform any function and exercise full legislative power in any and all matters of whatsoever nature pertaining to [their] municipal affairs," and A.C.A. § 14-43-601(a)(2)(B) lets cities legislate in state affairs if not in conflict with state law. Article 12, § 4 of the state constitution forbids ordinances that are "contrary to the general laws of the state." With no state law on golf cart insurance or operator age, an ordinance on those topics does not conflict.

Citations

Statutes

• A.C.A. § 14-54-1410 (golf cart operation on city streets; as amended by Act 170 of 2013)
• A.C.A. § 14-43-602(a) (municipal powers in municipal affairs)
• A.C.A. § 14-43-601(a)(1) (definition of "municipal affair")
• A.C.A. § 14-43-601(a)(2)(B) (municipal authority in state affairs)
• Ark. Const. art. 12, § 4 (no contrary ordinances)

Cases (all Arkansas Supreme Court)

• Jones v. American Home Life Ins. Co., 293 Ark. 330, 738 S.W.2d 387 (1987)
• City of Fort Smith v. Housing Authority of the City of Fort Smith, 256 Ark. 254, 506 S.W.2d 534 (1974)
• Nahlen v. Woods, 255 Ark. 974, 504 S.W.2d 749 (1974)

Prior AG opinions

• Op. Att'y Gen. Nos. 2009-082, 2009-068, 2008-142

Source

• Landing page: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

Original opinion text

STATE OF ARKANSAS

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
DUSTIN McDANIEL

Opinion No. 2013-138

April 4, 2014

The Honorable Johnny Key
State Senator
Post Office Box 350
Mountain Home, Arkansas 72654

Dear Senator Key:

You have asked for my opinion on three questions related to the interpretation of Act 170 of 2013, which deals with the authority of municipalities to enact an ordinance permitting the operation of golf carts on city streets. Specifically, you ask:

1. Can a municipality refuse to consider such an ordinance if it determines their streets are not designated for such use?
   a. If the answer is no, who bears the liability in case of an accident?

2. Can a municipality require golf carts to have liability insurance and set a minimum age for individuals operating golf carts?

RESPONSE

Your questions are about the nature and scope of the authority granted to municipalities under section 14-54-1410, which Act 170 of 2013 amended. Yet nothing in the Act altered the nature of the authority expressly granted to municipalities. Therefore, I continue to hold my prior views on the interpretation of this statute. Accordingly, in response to your first question, a municipality has absolute discretion to decide whether to allow golf carts on its streets. The question of who bears liability for an accident involving a golf carts turns on standard principles of tort liability. In response to your second question, municipalities are authorized to enact ordinances that are not contrary to state law. According to my review, there are no state laws establishing insurance or age requirements for golf carts operating on city streets pursuant to an ordinance passed under section 14-54-1410. Therefore, in my opinion, the answer to your second question is "yes."

DISCUSSION

Because your questions arise from a single statute on which I have previously opined, I will briefly explain my earlier conclusions regarding the statute. Doing so will enable me to concisely state the change wrought by Act 170 of 2013 and how that informs the answers to your questions.

I have opined on section 14-54-1410's pre-2013 version three times. In Opinion No. 2008-142, I explained that while this statute "gives some discretion to municipalities on whether to permit the operation of golf carts on city streets, this discretion is extremely limited." Citing former subsection 1410(b), I explained that municipalities have the authority to authorize the operation of golf carts "from the owner's place of residence to the golf course and to return from the golf course to the owner's residence."

Act 170 of 2013 amended A.C.A. § 14-54-1410 by deleting an entire subsection (indicated below in the stricken language) and renumbering the remaining subsections as follows:

14-54-1410. Operation of golf carts on city streets.

(a) It shall be within the municipal affairs and authority of any municipality in the State of Arkansas to authorize, by municipal ordinance, any owner of a golf cart to operate the golf cart upon the city streets of the municipality; provided, however, operation shall not be authorized on city streets which are also designated as federal or state highways or as a county road.

(b) When authorized by the municipality to operate on the city streets and limited to the circumstances and provisions of this section, there shall be no motor vehicle registration or license necessary to operate the golf cart on the public street.

(c) The term "municipality" as used in this section means any city of the first class, city of the second class, or an incorporated town.

As you can see from the foregoing quotation, Act 170 of 2013's only substantive change was to remove subsection (b), which was itself a statutory limitation on the locations where golf carts could be operated. Act 170 did not affect the nature of the authority granted to municipalities, which is set forth in subsection (a). Thus, in my opinion, the degree of municipal control over the operation of golf carts on city streets was unaffected by Act 170. Consequently, section 14-54-1410 grants municipalities the authority to decide whether golf carts can be driven on those streets. Section 14-54-1410 does not itself grant any further regulatory authority to municipalities regarding the manner in which golf carts are driven or the qualifications of their operators.

Having made these preliminary points, we can now directly address your questions.

Question 1: (A) Can a municipality refuse to consider such an ordinance if it determines their streets are not designated for such use? (B) If the answer is no, who bears the liability in case of an accident?

I am not entirely sure what this question is asking. Section 14-54-1410(a) makes it clear that the municipality has discretion to decide whether to pass an ordinance allowing golf carts on its streets. If the municipality decides, for whatever reason, that having golf carts on its streets is undesirable, then the municipality may simply refrain from enacting the ordinance. The answer to your second sub-question turns on standard principles of tort liability and, thus, cannot be answered in the abstract.

Question 2: Can a municipality require golf carts to have liability insurance and set a minimum age for individuals operating golf carts?

Municipalities are creatures of the legislature and, as such, have only the power bestowed upon them by statute or the Arkansas Constitution. Municipalities have been authorized to "perform any function and exercise full legislative power in any and all matters of whatsoever nature pertaining to [their] municipal affairs." Municipalities can also legislate in matters designated as "state affairs" as long as the city's legislation is "not in conflict with state law." Further, even in matters designated as "municipal affairs," the state constitution prohibits municipalities from enacting any ordinances that are "contrary to the general laws of the state." Thus, regardless of whether the regulation you describe would be considered a state or a municipal affair, the city would be authorized to regulate in that matter as long as the regulation was not "in conflict with" or "contrary to" a state law.

Such a regulation would be in conflict with or contrary to state law (and thus, unauthorized) under two scenarios. First, the regulation would be unauthorized if the General Assembly included golf carts in the comprehensive statutory system governing the registration, licensing, operation, and insuring of motor vehicles. But there are several reasons to think that the General Assembly has not done so. First, in section 14-54-1410(b), the General Assembly expressly stated that golf carts are not subject to the standard licensing and registration requirements: "there shall be no motor vehicle registration or license necessary to operate the golf cart on the public street." This shows an intent to treat golf carts differently from motor vehicles that are designed to operate on roadways. Second, enactment of section 14-54-1410 was apparently necessary in order to allow the operation of golf carts on roadways. This further evinces the fact that the General Assembly has not subsumed golf carts into the larger body of law governing motor vehicles.

The other scenario in which such a municipal regulation would be unauthorized is if there were a specific state statute governing the insuring and operating of golf carts. But according to my review, there is no such statute. Given the apparent lack of any state regulation on the matters of the insuring of and age-restrictions on the operation of golf carts, it is difficult to see how a municipal ordinance addressing the topics you specified would be in conflict with or contrary to state law.

Therefore, in my opinion, municipalities that authorize golf carts on their streets may also require liability insurance and set a minimum-age requirement.

Assistant Attorney General Ryan Owsley prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.

Sincerely,

DUSTIN MCDANIEL
Attorney General

DM:RO/cyh