Manitoba golf carts are ‘automobiles,’ court finds

A golf cart is in fact an “automobile” under the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act (MPIC), the Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba has ruled.
Jeff Hruska sustained an injury to his right leg while a passenger in a golf cart in April 2003. He filed a negligence claim against the golf club and the golf cart driver, Christopher Gama.
The golf club said Hruska’s injury was covered by Part II of the MPIC Act, which deals with universal bodily injury compensation. That being the case, no-fault compensation would be payable to Hruska, but his civil action would be statute-barred.
Hruska applied for benefits, but Manitoba Public Insurance denied his request, saying there was an exclusion for “off-road vehicles” under Part I of the MPIC Act.
The court observed different definitions of an “automobile” appear in Parts I and II of the MPIC Act.
Part I of the MPIC Act, which deals with registration and insurance, defines an automobile simply as “a motor vehicle” It further refers to the Highway Traffic Act, which says a ‘vehicle’ under this definition means a device in, upon or by which “a person or thing may be transported or drawn upon a highway.”
Part II of the MPIC Act defines an automobile as: “a vehicle not run upon rails that is designed to be self-propelled or propelled by electrical power obtained from overhead trolley wires.” Part II does not define a “vehicle.”
The Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba said a golf cart is an automobile under both parts of the MPIC Act.
“Even if one were led to the definition of ‘vehicle’ in Part I and thereby to the HTA definition, that would not exclude a golf cart,” the court ruled. “It is a device by which a person may be transported on a highway and is not designed solely by human muscular power, or used on tracks; nor is it a motorized mobility aid [the other vehicle exclusions in the act].”