Could a South Carolina golf cart permit holder let someone else drive the cart on a public road?

Plain-English summary

North's police chief asked whether a person holding a permit under South Carolina's golf cart statute could authorize someone else to drive the cart on public roads. In April 1995, Assistant Attorney General Robert Cook concluded that the permit could not be passed to another operator. He read the statute as giving the licensed owner who met its conditions permission to operate the cart personally.

The law quoted in the letter tied the permit to the owner's valid driver's license, fee, and proof of financial responsibility. It described operation on a secondary road or street within two miles of the owner's residence during daylight hours. Cook regarded that wording as deliberate and said a holder could not authorize an unlicensed driver to do what the law forbade.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995. 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.

Historical summary

Golf cart owners and drivers

Under the provision interpreted in 1995, the permittee's eligibility and permitted road use were personal. The letter said a holder could not simply lend that road-use authority to another operator.

Police and municipal officials

The writer's answer addressed the power to authorize another driver under the cited permit. It did not make factual findings about any particular trip or another person's separate eligibility for a permit.

Common questions

Could the owner let a family member use the owner's permit to drive on a secondary road? The letter answered the broader authorization question no. It treated the permit as personal to the licensed owner who obtained it.

What if the other driver had no driver's license?
The writer was especially clear that the permittee could not authorize an unlicensed person to drive the cart on the highway.

Did the 1995 provision allow unrestricted street driving? No. As quoted in the letter, it limited the permit holder to a secondary road or street within two miles of the holder's residence and to daylight hours.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion read Section 56-3-115 by its ordinary words and treated a license or permit as personal to its holder. Its answer concerned the provision in force in April 1995. The letter expressly said it was an informal opinion by the signing assistant and was not personally reviewed or formally published by the Attorney General.

Citations and references

• Section 56-3-115: the golf cart permit provision interpreted.
• State v. Martin and Crown Cork and Seal Co.,Inc. v. S. C. Tax Comm.: cases cited for statutory construction.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/april-4-1995/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/1995apr4kirven.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES MOLONY CONDON
ATIORNEY GE'J:ERAL

April 4, 1995

Kenneth Kirven, Chief of Police
North Police Department
P. 0. Box 399
North, South Carolina 29112
RE: Informal Opinion
Dear Chief Kirven:
You have asked whether a person who possesses a permit to operate a golf cart issued pursuant to S.C. Code Ann., Section 56-3-115, may authorize another person to operate that golf cart on the public highways of this State. As I read the provision, I do not believe such authorization may be given. Section 56-3-115 provides: The owner of a vehicle commonly known as a golf cart, if he has a valid driver's license, may obtain a permit from the department upon the payment of a fee of five dollars and proof of financial responsibility which permits him to operate the golf cart on a secondary highway or street within two miles of his residence during daylight hours only. [emphasis added]. In interpreting any statute, the primary purpose is to ascertain the intent of the Legislature. State v. Martin, 293 S.C. 46, 358 S.E.2d 697 (1987). Where a statute is REMBERT c. DENNIS Bl'ILD!!'.'G

•

PosT OFFICE Box 11549

•

COLUMBIA.

s.c. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE:

803-734-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

Chief Kirven
Page 2
April 4, 1995
clear and unambiguous, its terms must be given their literal meaning. Crown Cork and Seal Co.,Inc. v. S. C. Tax Comm., 302 S.C. 140, 394 S.E.2d 315 (1990). It is the duty of the court to give an unambiguous statute effect according to the clear meaning of the statute. Helfrich v. Brasington Sand and Gravel Co., 268 S.C. 236, 233 S.E.2d 291 (1977). A statute which is remedial in purpose must be broadly construed to fully effectuate its purpose. South Carolina Dept. of Mental Health v. Hanna, 270 S.C. 210, 24 I S.E.2d 563 (1978). Applying these rules of construction, it is my opinion that Section 56-3-115 does not allow a permittee to authorize another person, particularly one who is not licensed to drive, to operate the golf cart on the highway. As a general rule, a license or permit is generally considered personal to the licensee. 51 Am.Jur. 2d, Licenses and Permits, § 3. It has been stated elsewhere that
[a] licensee generally is regarded as a privilege of personal trust and confidence which cannot be assigned or transferred without the consent of the licensing authorities .... 53 C.J.S., Licenses, § 49. Moreover, the language of Section 56-3- I 15 is clearly written in terms of the permit being personal to the individual. In order to qualify for a permit, a person must be a validly licensed driver. He or she must also pay the permit fee and present proof of financial responsibility. The statute is written, furthermore, in terms of permitting "him" to operate the car on a secondary highway or street within two miles of "his" residence and only during daylight hours. Clearly, the Legislature used words carefully chosen to indicate that the permit was personal to the operator. It is apparent that an operator could not authorize a person who is not a licensed driver to operate the golf cart on a secondary street or highway because a licensee could not authorize what the law forbids. Moreover, my reading of the statute is that the permit is personal to the operator and such operator could not authorize another to operate the cart on the streets or highways. This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated Assistant Attorney General and represents the position of the undersigned attorney as to the specific questions asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized )Jy the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion.

Chief Kirven
Page 3
April 4, 1995
With kind regards, I remain

Robert D. Cook
Assistant Attorney General
RDC/ph