Are pay-to-ride go-carts on a track an amusement device that the North Carolina Department of Labor can inspect and regulate?
Plain-English summary
NC's Amusement Device Safety Act (Article 14B of Chapter 95) gives the Department of Labor authority to inspect and regulate "amusement devices" that the public pays to ride. The statute lists examples: roller coasters, Ferris wheels, merry-go-rounds, glasshouses, waterslides, walk-through dark houses. None of those is a go-cart track. So in 1989, Labor Commissioner John Brooks asked the AG whether the Department's inspection authority extended to pay-to-ride go-cart facilities.
Attorney General Lacy Thornburg and Associate AG Richard Love said yes. Their reasoning:
The statutory definition in N.C.G.S. § 95-111.3(a) is broad. An "amusement device" is "any device or attraction that carries or conveys or permits persons to walk along, around or over a fixed or restricted route or course or within a defined area" for the purpose of "amusement, pleasure, thrills or excitement." The listed examples are illustrative, not exhaustive: the statute says "include but not be limited to."
A pay-to-ride go-cart on a fixed track checks every element:
- It is a "device" that "carries" or "conveys" persons.
- The track is a "fixed or restricted route or course."
- The purpose is amusement, pleasure, thrill, or excitement; that is why patrons pay to ride.
- N.C.G.S. § 95-111.18 directs the courts to construe Article 14B liberally to protect public welfare. Borderline cases go to coverage, not exclusion.
The AG also pointed to out-of-state cases as supportive context. In Potts v. Crafts (Cal. 1935), miniature automobiles on an oval amusement-park track were treated as part of a place of amusement. In Carlyle v. Goettee (Ga. 1941), two-wheel scooters on an amusement track were similarly characterized. In Balart v. Michel's Kartway (Fla. 1978), the defendant operated a "go-cart" track and the facility was a place of public amusement. None of those cases construed the NC statute, but they are evidence that "go-cart on a track for a fee" is broadly understood as an amusement attraction in common legal usage.
The practical takeaway from the opinion: NC go-cart track operators are subject to inspection, permitting, insurance, and operational requirements under Article 14B of Chapter 95.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1989. 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. The Amusement Device Safety Act has been amended multiple times since 1989, including changes to inspection schedules, fee structures, and definitions. Track operators should consult the current text of Chapter 95, Article 14B and the NC Department of Labor's current rules before relying on the 1989 framework. The core conclusion (go-cart tracks are amusement devices) has not been displaced by any later opinion or court ruling that we are aware of.
Background and statutory framework
NC's Amusement Device Safety Act was enacted to address public safety risks at amusement parks, fairs, and other commercial recreation facilities. The Department of Labor administers the Act through its Elevator and Amusement Device Bureau (now part of the Bureau of Occupational Safety and Health within DOL). The Act requires operators of amusement devices to:
- Register or permit each device with the Department.
- Have devices inspected on a regular schedule.
- Maintain liability insurance.
- Report accidents that cause injury or property damage.
- Train operators and follow safe-operating procedures.
The 1989 question on go-carts arose because the original Act listed only the classic amusement-park rides. Operators of newer, then-popular attractions (go-carts, paintball, laser tag, climbing walls) sometimes argued they were not within the Act because their facility was not specifically named. The AG's 1989 opinion is part of a broader pattern of construing the Act broadly to cover any commercial amusement attraction that fits the functional definition, not just the listed examples.
The statutory rule of liberal construction in N.C.G.S. § 95-111.18 was central to the AG's reasoning. Where two readings of a public-safety statute are both reasonable, the reading that better serves the protective purpose controls. The narrower reading (Article 14B applies only to the specifically listed devices) would have excluded a substantial category of devices that pose similar risks. The broader reading (Article 14B applies to anything that fits § 95-111.3(a)) covers the safety gap.
Common questions
Does the AG's reasoning extend to other commercial amusement attractions, like bumper cars or amusement-park boats?
The reasoning extends to any facility where (1) a device conveys patrons along a fixed or restricted route or within a defined area, (2) the purpose is amusement, pleasure, thrill, or excitement, and (3) the activity is offered commercially. Bumper cars (which clearly fit, and were within the original framework) are covered. Amusement-park boat rides on a fixed route or in a defined area are covered. Children's coin-operated rides at malls have historically been treated as covered by the Department.
What about a private go-cart track on someone's residential property, not open to the public?
The Act applies to amusement devices offered commercially or to the public for compensation. A purely private, non-fee, non-public residential setup is outside the typical scope. But once a facility is open to the public for a fee, or operates as a commercial enterprise, the Act applies.
What about inflatable bounce houses at parties?
The Department of Labor has separate regulations covering inflatable amusement devices when rented or operated commercially. The treatment has evolved since 1989, and operators should check current Department guidance.
Does the 1989 opinion bind a current court?
No. AG opinions are persuasive authority, not binding precedent. But the underlying statute (§ 95-111.3(a)) still uses the same broad definitional structure, and no NC appellate court has rejected the AG's reading. A court today would likely reach the same result on a clean statutory-construction analysis.
Source
Citations
- N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-111.3 (definition of amusement device)
- N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-111.3(a) (devices for amusement, pleasure, thrill, excitement)
- N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-111.18 (liberal construction)
- N.C. Gen. Stat. Ch. 95, Art. 14B (Amusement Device Safety Act of North Carolina)
- Potts v. Crafts, 5 Cal. App. 2d 83, 42 P.2d 87 (1935)
- Carlyle v. Goettee, 64 Ga. App. 360, 13 S.E.2d 206 (1941)
- Balart v. Michel's Kartway, Inc., 364 So. 2d 90 (Fla. App. 3d Dist. 1978)
- 4 Am. Jur. 2d, Amusements and Exhibitions, § 91
- 86 ALR2d 353 (1962)
Original opinion text
Subject: Definition of Amusement Device, G.S. 95-111.3
Requested By:
John C. Brooks
Commissioner
North Carolina Department of Labor
Question:
Is a "go-cart" operated on a track by patrons for a fee an amusement device as defined by G.S. 95-111.3?
Conclusion:
Yes.
The North Carolina Courts have not construed the statutory definition of the term "amusement device." However, the requirement in G.S. 95-111.18 that the Article receive a liberal construction to protect the welfare of the people and the plain language of the statute suggests that a "go-cart" operated on a fixed or restricted route or course is an "amusement device." G.S. 95-111.3 provides in pertinent part as follows:
(a) The term "amusement device" shall mean any device or attraction that carries or conveys or permits persons to walk along, around or over a fixed or restricted route or course or within a defined area including the entrances and exits thereto, for the purpose of giving such persons amusement, pleasure, thrills or excitement. The term shall include but not be limited to roller coasters, Ferris wheels, merry-go-rounds, glasshouses, waterslides, and walk-through dark houses.
A "go-cart" operated by a patron for a fee along, around, or over a fixed or restricted route or course (track) is a device operated for the purpose of amusement, pleasure, thrill, or excitement. Clearly, therefore, a "go-cart" operated on a fixed track is included within the definition of amusement device as set out in G.S. 95-111.3(a) and is subject to the requirements of Article 14B, Chapter 95 of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Amusement Device Safety Act of North Carolina.
There also has been no interpretation of "amusement device" by courts in states with similar statutory language. However, a few cases from other jurisdictions have considered miniature automobiles, two-wheel motor scooters, and "go-carts" operated on tracks at amusement facilities to be amusement devices or attractions. In Potts v. Crafts, 5 Cal. App. 2d 83, 42 P.2d 87 (1935), the Court stated that the defendant operated a place of amusement which included an oval track on which patrons operated miniature automobiles. In Carlyle v. Goettee, 64 Ga. App. 360, 13 S.E.2d 206 (1941), an amusement park furnished two-wheeled scooters to customers for a fee and also provided a track on which the public could ride the scooters. Finally, in Balart v. Michel's Kartway, Inc., 364 So. 2d 90 (1978 Fla. App. D3), the defendant operated a place of public amusement which consisted of a "go-cart" track facility where "go-carts" were rented to patrons for use on the track. See also, 4 Am. Jur.2d, Amusements and Exhibitions, § 91 and 86 ALR2d 353 (1962). While these cases do not involve the interpretation of statutory law, they are supportive of the above interpretation of the definition of "amusement device" under G.S. 95-111.3(a).
In summary, a "go-cart" operated over a restricted route for a fee by patrons is an amusement device as defined by G.S. 95-111.3(a).
Lacy H. Thornburg
Attorney General
Richard A. Love
Associate Attorney General