Start with the sentence that decides most of these cases: a snowmobile is not a motor vehicle, an ATV is not a motor vehicle, nobody is required to insure either one, and the Minnesota No-Fault Act does not apply to a crash involving them. No PIP. No medical-expense benefits paid without regard to fault. No wage loss. If the operator who hurt you has no homeowner’s policy that happens to reach the machine, there may be nothing to collect.
Now the second sentence, which almost nobody has caught up to. In 2024 the legislature added a single paragraph to Minn. Stat. § 169.09 — the accident statute — providing that for purposes of that section, “motor vehicle” includes snowmobiles and off-highway vehicles. Section 169.09 contains subdivision 5a, the owner-consent rule that makes a car’s owner answerable for a permissive driver’s negligence. For fifty years Minnesota courts held that rule did not reach snowmobiles. On the current text, it does.
That is the argument worth building a snowmobile or ATV case around, and this article walks the chain of statutes that gets you there — plus the trail-club immunity that will end your case against the entity that groomed the trail, the two accident reports nobody thinks to request, and the alcohol statute the assignment sheets still cite that was repealed in its entirety.
Does no-fault pay for a snowmobile or ATV crash?
No, and the reason is worth tracing because it also disposes of the UM/UIM question.
The No-Fault Act defines its own key term at Minn. Stat. § 65B.43, subd. 2:
“Motor vehicle” means every vehicle, other than a motorcycle or other vehicle with fewer than four wheels, which (a) is required to be registered pursuant to chapter 168, and (b) is designed to be self-propelled by an engine or motor for use primarily upon public roads, highways or streets in the transportation of persons or property, and includes a trailer with one or more wheels, when the trailer is connected to or being towed by a motor vehicle.
That is a conjunctive test — (a) and (b). A snowmobile or ATV fails both.
It fails (a) because chapter 168 says so. Minn. Stat. § 168.002, subd. 18(d): “‘Motor vehicle’ does not include a snowmobile; a manufactured home; a park trailer; an electric personal assistive mobility device … a motorized foot scooter … or an electric-assisted bicycle.” Paragraph (c) does the same for ATVs, with two narrow exceptions — an ATV with at least four wheels owned and operated by a physically disabled person displaying disability plates and a certificate under § 169.345 (paragraph (b)), and an ATV that was licensed as a motor vehicle before August 1, 1985. Snowmobiles register under Minn. Stat. § 84.82; ATVs under § 84.922. Neither registers under chapter 168.
It fails (b) because these machines are not designed for use primarily on public roads. Minn. Stat. § 84.81, subd. 3 defines a snowmobile as “a self-propelled vehicle originally manufactured and designed for travel on snow or ice steered by skis or runners.” The Minnesota Supreme Court leaned on exactly that contrast in Stepec v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 301 Minn. 434, 222 N.W.2d 796 (1974), reading the word “designed” to mean “to plan or produce with special intentional adaptation to a specific end,” and concluding that it “cannot reconcile” a highway-use construction of “motor vehicle” with the statutory definition of a snowmobile. 301 Minn. at 437.
Because § 65B.43, subd. 2 is the gateway, everything downstream falls with it. Section 65B.46, subd. 1 gives basic economic loss benefits to a person injured “arising out of maintenance or use of a motor vehicle or as a result of being struck as a pedestrian by a motorcycle.” Neither branch reaches a snowmobile or an ATV.
Note how different this is from the motorcycle problem. Motorcycles are inside the Act — the gap for riders comes from an express carve-out in § 65B.46, subd. 3, which is a different mechanism with different consequences. We cover it in the Minnesota motorcycle crash no-fault gap, and the general framework in Minnesota no-fault basics. Snowmobiles and ATVs are not carved out of the Act. They were never in it.
Is anyone required to carry insurance on a snowmobile or ATV?
No. Minn. Stat. § 65B.48, subd. 1 imposes the compulsory-security requirement on “[e]very owner of a motor vehicle of a type which is required to be registered or licensed or is principally garaged in this state,” and subdivision 5 adds motorcycles. Neither reaches a machine that chapter 168 excludes.
And nothing in chapter 84 fills the gap. Reviewing the snowmobile and ATV provisions — §§ 84.81 through 84.929, covering definitions, registration, transfer, trail funding, licensing by political subdivisions, rules and accident reports, operation, penalties, confiscation, operating limitations on other people’s land, manufacturer requirements, safety training, youthful operators, passengers, and public-land use — none of them requires an owner or operator to carry liability insurance. There is no snowmobile or ATV financial-responsibility law in Minnesota.
Practical consequence. The money in these cases usually comes from a homeowner’s or farm policy, either through a recreational-vehicle endorsement or through the policy’s treatment of vehicles used off the insured premises. Whether coverage exists is a policy-language question, not a statutory one, and the policy will not necessarily reach the person you are suing.
State Automobile & Casualty Underwriters v. Runia, 363 N.W.2d 818 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985), is the cautionary example. A passenger was seriously injured on a snowmobile owned by her father and driven, with permission, by a family friend. The snowmobile was insured — under a “Recreational Vehicle Endorsement” to the father’s homeowner’s policy. The court still found no coverage, because the policy defined “insured” as the named insured and household relatives, and the driver was neither: “The policy’s ‘Recreational Vehicle Endorsement’ language does not expand the definition of an insured. The endorsement merely extends the circumstances under which persons already insured may be covered.” 363 N.W.2d at 820–21.
So the first two questions in any snowmobile or ATV case are: is there a policy, and does the person who caused the crash fall inside its definition of “insured”?
Can I use my own auto UM or UIM coverage?
Usually not, and the statutory chain is the same one.
Minn. Stat. § 65B.49, subd. 3a(1) requires uninsured and underinsured motorist coverages in every plan of reparation security issued “with respect to any motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this state.” What those coverages have to reach is defined in § 65B.43. Subdivision 16: “‘Uninsured motor vehicle’ means a motor vehicle or motorcycle for which a plan of reparation security meeting the requirements of sections 65B.41 to 65B.71 is not in effect.” Subdivision 17 mirrors that language for underinsured motor vehicles.
A snowmobile is neither a “motor vehicle” (§ 65B.43, subd. 2, as shown above) nor, on its face, a “motorcycle” — subdivision 13 defines that term as “a self-propelled vehicle designed to travel on fewer than four wheels which has an engine rated at greater than five horsepower,” and a snowmobile travels on skis and runners rather than wheels. Stepec reached the same result under the predecessor uninsured-motorist mandate then codified at Minn. St. § 65B.22, subd. 3, holding flatly that the section “does not govern snowmobiles.” 301 Minn. at 438. That statute no longer exists, so Stepec is not directly controlling on the current mandate — but its reasoning tracks the definitions that replaced it.
Two important qualifications.
First, the machine matters. Subdivision 13 keys “motorcycle” to wheel count and horsepower, not to road registration, and an ATV is defined in § 84.92, subd. 8(a) as a vehicle with “not less than three, but not more than six low pressure or non-pneumatic tires.” A three-wheeled machine does not fit the § 65B.43, subd. 2 definition, but whether it fits subdivision 13 is a question the text does not obviously answer. Read the definitions against the specific machine rather than assuming the answer.
Second, and more usefully: your policy may cover more than the statute requires. Runia said so directly — “The policy, as a contract, may provide coverage beyond minimum requirements imposed by statute” — while holding that the reverse does not follow, because “a policy definition of a motor vehicle does not supplement the statutory definition.” 363 N.W.2d at 820. Minnesota auto policies have been construed to reach snowmobiles when their own terms did so. The statute sets a floor; the declarations page and the definitions section decide the case. Get the certified policy, not the summary. Our general treatment of these coverages is at uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage in Minnesota.
Is the owner liable for the friend who was driving? The 2024 change
This is the part of the analysis that changed, and the change has not been litigated.
Minnesota’s owner-consent statute — the rule that makes the owner of a vehicle vicariously liable for a permissive driver’s negligence — is now Minn. Stat. § 169.09, subd. 5a:
Whenever any motor vehicle shall be operated within this state, by any person other than the owner, with the consent of the owner, express or implied, the operator thereof shall in case of accident, be deemed the agent of the owner of such motor vehicle in the operation thereof.
That provision was formerly Minn. Stat. § 170.54, part of the Safety Responsibility Act; the Revisor’s entry for § 170.54 now reads “[Renumbered 169.09, subd 5a].” The text is unchanged.
The old answer was no. In Runia, the Court of Appeals held squarely that “[t]he Safety Responsibility Act does not apply to snowmobiles,” reading the No-Fault Act’s definition of motor vehicle into § 170.54 and concluding that “[a] snowmobile falls outside this definition of motor vehicle.” 363 N.W.2d at 820, 821. Stepec had pointed the same direction eleven years earlier.
The 2024 amendment supplies a definition those cases did not have. Section 169.09 now ends its terminology subdivision with this:
(c) For purposes of this section, motor vehicle includes off-highway vehicles, as defined in section 84.771, and snowmobiles, as defined in section 84.81.
Minn. Stat. § 169.09, subd. 19(c). And § 84.771 sweeps in ATVs: “‘off-highway vehicle’ means an off-highway motorcycle, as defined under section 84.787, subdivision 7; an off-road vehicle, as defined under section 84.797, subdivision 7; or an all-terrain vehicle, as defined under section 84.92, subdivision 8.”
Subdivision 5a sits inside section 169.09. Subdivision 19(c) says that within that section, “motor vehicle” includes snowmobiles and ATVs. On the face of the statute, the owner-consent rule now reaches both.
That paragraph was added by 2024 Minn. Laws ch. 104, art. 1, § 33. Section 33 carries no effective-date clause of its own, so the default in Minn. Stat. § 645.02 governs; because chapter 104 contains appropriation items, that default is the first day of July following final enactment. Nothing in the section limits it to the reporting subdivisions, and nothing in it carves out subdivision 5a.
Two cautions, stated plainly. No Minnesota appellate court has yet construed § 169.09, subd. 19(c), and none has revisited Runia in light of it. This is a textual argument, not a decided question. And a defendant will argue that a terminology subdivision written alongside definitions of “collision” and “disabling damage” was aimed at the crash-reporting provisions rather than at vicarious liability. The answer to that is that the legislature wrote “for purposes of this section” and could have written “for purposes of subdivisions 1 to 4.”
Rented machines. Section 169.09, subd. 5a carries a Revisor’s note recording that it “was preempted by federal law to the extent it applies to rental or leased vehicles,” citing Meyer v. Nwokedi, 777 N.W.2d 218 (Minn. 2010) — the Graves Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 30106. But the Graves Amendment protects the owner of “a motor vehicle,” and chapter 301 of title 49 defines that term at 49 U.S.C. § 30102(a)(7) as “a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways.” Section 30106(d) defines “affiliate,” “owner,” and “person” — it does not supply its own definition of motor vehicle. A rented snowmobile or ATV is not manufactured primarily for road use, so the federal preemption that shields rental car companies appears not to reach a resort’s rental fleet. Again: a text-based argument, not a holding.
Which operating rules can carry a negligence claim?
Chapter 84 sets safety standards for both machines, and violations of them are the ordinary building blocks of a negligence case.
Snowmobiles — Minn. Stat. § 84.87, subd. 2 makes it unlawful to operate a snowmobile “(1) at a rate of speed greater than reasonable or proper under all the surrounding circumstances; (2) in a careless, reckless or negligent manner so as to endanger the person or property of another or to cause injury or damage thereto; (3) without a lighted head and taillight when required for safety; or (4) in any tree nursery or planting in a manner which damages or destroys growing stock.”
ATVs — Minn. Stat. § 84.928, subd. 2 is longer and more specific. It prohibits operating an ATV at a speed “greater than reasonable or proper under the surrounding circumstances”; “in a careless, reckless, or negligent manner so as to endanger or to cause injury or damage to the person or property of another”; without headlight and taillight lighted at all times if so equipped; without a functioning stoplight if so equipped; in a tree nursery or planting so as to damage growing stock; without a brake operable by hand or foot; “with more than one person on the vehicle, except as allowed under section 84.9257”; at more than ten miles per hour on the frozen surface of public waters within 100 feet of a person not on an ATV or within 100 feet of a fishing shelter; and in a manner violating the commissioner’s operation rules.
That passenger clause and that ten-mile-per-hour ice rule are worth remembering. Both come up constantly and neither is intuitive.
On the road. Snowmobiles may not be operated on the roadway, shoulder, or inside bank or slope of a trunk, county state-aid, or county highway except as chapter 84 allows, and never within an interstate or freeway right-of-way. § 84.87, subd. 1(a). Direct crossings are permitted under six conditions in subdivision 1(c), including a crossing “at an angle of approximately 90 degrees to the direction of the highway and at a place where no obstruction prevents a quick and safe crossing,” a complete stop before crossing, and yielding “to all oncoming traffic which constitutes an immediate hazard.” Subdivision 1(f) then applies “[a]ll provisions of chapters 169 and 169A … to the operation of snowmobiles upon streets and highways, except for those relating to required equipment, and except those which by their nature have no application.” Section 84.928, subd. 1a(e) does the same for ATVs.
Young operators. Minn. Stat. § 84.9256 governs ATVs and is detailed. A person under 12 may not cross or operate on a public road right-of-way or on public lands or waters, subject to a narrow exception in paragraph (f) for a person at least ten operating a class 1 machine — up to 110cc with straddle-style seating, or up to 170cc with side-by-side seating — on public lands or waters “if accompanied by a parent or legal guardian.” A person 12 to 15 may cross a right-of-way or operate on public lands, waters, or state or grant-in-aid trails only with a valid ATV safety certificate and while “accompanied by a person 18 years of age or older who holds a valid driver’s license.” A person under 15 may not operate a class 2 ATV at all. Subdivision 2a requires parent or guardian authorization for anyone under 16. And subdivision 3 makes it “unlawful for any person who is in lawful control of an all-terrain vehicle to permit it to be operated contrary to this section” — a direct negligence hook against the adult who handed over the keys.
Helmets: what Minnesota actually requires
Very little, and the answer differs by machine.
ATVs. Minn. Stat. § 84.9256, subd. 2(a): “A person less than 18 years of age shall not ride as a passenger or as an operator of an all-terrain vehicle on public land, public waters, or on a public road right-of-way unless wearing a safety helmet approved by the commissioner of public safety.” Paragraph (b) requires a seat belt for the same age group “when provided by the manufacturer.” Note the two limits: the requirement is age-based, and it is location-based. It does not reach adults, and it does not reach private land.
Snowmobiles. There is no statutory helmet requirement at all. Reviewing §§ 84.81 through 84.929 for this article, the word “helmet” appears only in § 84.9256 — the ATV youth provision. Minnesota does not require a snowmobile operator or passenger of any age to wear one.
Whether a plaintiff’s failure to wear a helmet reduces recovery is a separate question governed by comparative fault principles rather than by any snowmobile-specific statute. See comparative fault and collateral source in Minnesota.
The duty to stop, and the two accident reports nobody requests
Stopping and identifying. Section 84.87, subd. 1(f) contains a sentence that is easy to skim past: “Section 169.09 applies to the operation of snowmobiles anywhere in the state or on the ice of any boundary water of the state.” Not just on streets and highways — anywhere. Section 169.09, subd. 1 requires a driver involved in a collision to stop immediately, reasonably investigate what was struck, and remain if there is reason to know of injury or death, plus give notice to law enforcement. Subdivision 3(a) requires the driver to give name, date of birth, mailing or email address, and registration plate number, to exhibit a license on request to a peace officer, and to “render reasonable assistance to any individual injured in the collision.” Subdivision 3(b) requires the driver, if not given at the scene, to provide the liability insurer’s name and address and the local agent within 72 hours on request.
The ATV provisions contain no equivalent “anywhere in the state” sentence — § 84.928, subd. 1a(e) applies chapters 169 and 169A to ATVs “upon streets and highways.” The 2024 addition of § 169.09, subd. 19(c) may close that asymmetry, since it makes off-highway vehicles “motor vehicle[s]” for purposes of all of § 169.09.
The DNR accident report. Both machines carry a mandatory written accident report to the Commissioner of Natural Resources, and almost no one requests a copy.
For snowmobiles, Minn. Stat. § 84.86, subd. 1(c): the operator of a snowmobile “involved in an accident resulting in injury requiring medical attention or hospitalization to or death of any person or total damage to an extent of $500 or more, shall forward a written report of the accident to the commissioner on a form prescribed by the commissioner.” If the operator is killed or incapacitated, “any peace officer investigating the accident shall file the accident report within ten business days.”
For ATVs, Minn. Stat. § 84.924, subd. 3 sets the same $500 / medical-attention / hospitalization / death threshold and requires both the operator and an investigating officer to forward the report within ten business days.
The coroner’s toxicology. Minn. Stat. § 84.911, subd. 7(a) requires every coroner or medical examiner to report to the DNR, within 15 days, the death of any person “as the result of an accident involving an off-road recreational vehicle, as defined in section 169A.03, subdivision 16, and the circumstances of the accident.” Paragraph (b) goes further: for drivers killed in such accidents, and for passengers 14 or older who die within four hours, the coroner or medical examiner “shall examine the body and shall make tests as are necessary to determine the presence and percentage concentration of alcohol, and drugs if feasible, in the blood of the victim,” and that information must be included in the report.
In a wrongful death case where alcohol is in issue, that is a statutorily mandated test result sitting in a state file. Ask for it.
Suing the trail: the club that groomed it is probably immune
If the crash happened on a grant-in-aid trail and the theory is bad signage, bad grooming, or a hazard the club should have removed, expect the claim to fail on immunity — and expect the immunity to come from an unexpected direction.
Minn. Stat. § 84.83, subd. 4(a): “Recipients of Minnesota trail assistance program funds must be afforded the same protection and be held to the same standard of liability as a political subdivision under chapter 466 for activities associated with the administration, design, construction, maintenance, and grooming of snowmobile trails.”
Chapter 466’s relevant exception is § 466.03, subd. 6e, which immunizes “[a]ny claim based upon the construction, operation, or maintenance of any property owned or leased by the municipality that is intended or permitted to be used as a park, as an open area for recreational purposes, or for the provision of recreational services, or from any claim based on the clearing of land, removal of refuse, and creation of trails or paths without artificial surfaces, if the claim arises from a loss incurred by a user of park and recreation property or services,” while preserving liability “for conduct that would entitle a trespasser to damages against a private person, except as provided in subdivision 23” — a school-property carve-out not implicated in a trail case.
That combination was applied to a snowmobile trail in Kastner v. Star Trails Ass’n, 658 N.W.2d 890 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003). Two riders were seriously injured at roughly the same spot on the Star Trail in Washington County, on land a private owner had permitted the county to use since 1976. They sued the nonprofit that built, groomed, and signed the trail with Minnesota Trail Assistance Program funding. The Court of Appeals held the association immune, and it rejected the argument that immunity covers only trail “creation” and not signage and maintenance: that reading “wrongly suggests that the legislature could only grant immunity for claims based on signage and maintenance if it specifically listed those types of claims.” Id. at 894.
The court then reached the recreational-use statute and held the club was also an “owner” under Minn. Stat. § 604A.21, subd. 4 — not because it held title, but because it controlled the trail: “The record reflects an arrangement by which the association — not the fee owner, the county, or the state — was the entity in control of the trail. The association had the right to enter and control the trail; no greater formality in the legal relationship between the association and the county or the owner is required under the statute.” Id. at 896.
The underlying recreational-use immunity framework — who is an “owner,” what “recreational purpose” covers, the charge exception, and the way § 84.90 flips the trespass default at the seven-county metro line — is set out in Minnesota recreational land use liability. Two points from it are worth restating here only because they are decisive in snowmobile cases: “recreational purpose” under § 604A.21, subd. 5 expressly includes “pleasure driving, including snowmobiling,” and § 604A.21, subd. 6 defines “recreational trail use” to include “snowmobile riding, and motorized trail riding.” So a trail case runs straight into § 604A.22 and into the second paragraph of § 604A.25, which strips even the trespasser-level theory where “the entry upon the land is incidental to or arises from access granted for the recreational trail use of land dedicated, leased, or permitted by the owners for recreational trail use.”
Where that leaves a trail plaintiff: the viable defendant is usually the other operator, not the club and not the landowner.
Alcohol: the statute everyone still cites was repealed
Minn. Stat. § 84.91 — “operation of snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles by persons under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances” — is gone. Every subdivision. Subdivisions 2 through 8 were repealed by 1Sp1997 ch. 2, § 69; subdivision 1 was repealed by 1Sp2021 ch. 6, art. 3, § 13. Do not cite it as current law, and do not let a form pleading cite it for you.
Impaired operation of these machines is now governed by chapter 169A, which reaches them through its own definitions. Minn. Stat. § 169A.03, subd. 15: “‘Motor vehicle’ means every vehicle that is self-propelled and every vehicle that is propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires. The term includes motorboats in operation and off-road recreational vehicles, but does not include a vehicle moved solely by human power.” And subdivision 16 defines “off-road recreational vehicle” as “an off-highway motorcycle as defined in section 84.787, subdivision 7; off-road vehicle as defined in section 84.797, subdivision 7; snowmobile as defined in section 84.81, subdivision 3; and all-terrain vehicle as defined in section 84.92, subdivision 8.”
So a snowmobile or ATV DWI is a chapter 169A offense, with all that follows from it — including that a prior such conviction counts as a “prior impaired driving conviction” under § 169A.03, subd. 20.
For the civil case, the alcohol facts usually matter in two ways: as evidence of negligence, and as the predicate for a claim against whoever sold or served the alcohol. That second route is its own statute and its own short notice deadline — see Minnesota dram shop liability.
Comparative fault
These cases are almost always contested on fault allocation — speed, visibility, who had the right of way at a trail intersection, whether a rider knew the terrain, alcohol on both sides. Minnesota’s rule is in Minn. Stat. § 604.01, subd. 1: contributory fault does not bar recovery “if the contributory fault was not greater than the fault of the person against whom recovery is sought, but any damages allowed must be diminished in proportion to the amount of fault attributable to the person recovering.”
Fifty percent is the line. At 51% the plaintiff recovers nothing.
What to do after a snowmobile or ATV crash
- Report it. The duty to stop and identify applies to snowmobiles anywhere in the state under § 84.87, subd. 1(f).
- Get the DNR report. § 84.86, subd. 1(c) for snowmobiles, § 84.924, subd. 3 for ATVs. It exists, it is mandatory, and it is often the only contemporaneous written account.
- Identify every policy, not every vehicle. Homeowner’s, farm, umbrella, and any recreational-vehicle endorsement — for the operator, the machine’s owner, and the household of each. Runia is a reminder that an endorsement naming the machine may still not name the driver.
- Read your own auto policy’s definitions. The statute does not require UM/UIM coverage for these machines, but a policy can grant more than the statute requires.
- Preserve the machines. Throttle position, brake condition, lighting, and any speed-limiter or track condition can be lost in a season.
- If it happened on a trail, find out who funded and groomed it early. Section 84.83, subd. 4(a) and Kastner mean the answer determines whether that defendant is in the case at all.
- Watch the ordinary two-year or six-year clock, and any shorter notice period that applies to a governmental defendant. Do not assume a longer period because the case involves a “vehicle.”
Madgett Law, LLC
Madgett Law, LLC represents injured people in Minnesota personal injury and wrongful death matters, including recreational vehicle crashes where the coverage question is harder than the liability question. We work the insurance analysis first — which policies exist, whose definitions of “insured” reach the person at fault, and whether the owner of the machine can be reached under Minn. Stat. § 169.09, subd. 5a — because in snowmobile and ATV cases that analysis usually decides the outcome. Call 612-470-6529 or send us a message.
Sources: Minn. Stat. § 65B.43, subd. 2 (No-Fault Act definition of “motor vehicle” — conjunctive chapter 168 registration and primary-road-use requirements), subd. 13 (“motorcycle” — fewer than four wheels, engine greater than five horsepower), subd. 16 (“uninsured motor vehicle”), subd. 17 (“underinsured motor vehicle”); Minn. Stat. § 65B.46, subd. 1 (right to basic economic loss benefits); Minn. Stat. § 65B.48, subd. 1 (compulsory security for motor vehicles), subd. 5 (motorcycle coverage); Minn. Stat. § 65B.49, subd. 3a(1)–(2) (mandatory uninsured and underinsured motorist coverages and minimum limits); Minn. Stat. § 168.002, subd. 18(a)–(d) (chapter 168 “motor vehicle”; the ATV exclusion and its two exceptions; the snowmobile exclusion); Minn. Stat. § 169.011, subd. 42 (chapter 169 general definition, reviewed for contrast); Minn. Stat. § 169.09, subd. 1 (duty to stop and notify), subd. 3(a)–(b) (information to be given; 72-hour insurer disclosure), subd. 5a (driver deemed agent of owner; formerly § 170.54, renumbered), subd. 19(c) (2024 terminology provision extending “motor vehicle” to off-highway vehicles and snowmobiles for purposes of § 169.09), and the Revisor’s note recording Graves Amendment preemption as to rental and leased vehicles per Meyer v. Nwokedi, 777 N.W.2d 218 (Minn. 2010); Minn. Stat. § 169A.03, subd. 15 (“motor vehicle” includes off-road recreational vehicles), subd. 16 (“off-road recreational vehicle”), subd. 20(4) (prior impaired driving conviction, referencing Minnesota Statutes 1996, § 84.91); Minn. Stat. § 170.54 (Revisor entry: “[Renumbered 169.09, subd 5a]”); Minn. Stat. § 84.81, subd. 3 (snowmobile definition); Minn. Stat. § 84.82 (snowmobile registration); Minn. Stat. § 84.83, subd. 4(a) (trail assistance program recipients held to chapter 466 standard for administration, design, construction, maintenance, and grooming); Minn. Stat. § 84.86, subd. 1(c) (snowmobile accident report; $500 / medical attention / hospitalization / death threshold; peace officer filing within ten business days); Minn. Stat. § 84.87, subd. 1(a) (highway prohibition), subd. 1(c) (six conditions for a direct crossing), subd. 1(f) (chapters 169 and 169A applied on streets and highways; § 169.09 applied anywhere in the state), subd. 2 (unsafe operation); Minn. Stat. § 84.90, subds. 1–7 (recreational motor vehicle operating limitations; treated in the cross-linked recreational land use article); Minn. Stat. § 84.91 (all subdivisions repealed — subds. 2–8 by 1Sp1997 c 2 s 69; subd. 1 by 1Sp2021 c 6 art 3 s 13); Minn. Stat. § 84.911, subd. 7(a)–(b) (coroner or medical examiner report within 15 days; mandatory alcohol and drug testing of drivers and of passengers 14 or older who die within four hours); Minn. Stat. § 84.92, subd. 8(a)–(b) (all-terrain vehicle definition), subds. 9–10 (class 1 and class 2); Minn. Stat. § 84.922 (ATV registration); Minn. Stat. § 84.924, subd. 3 (ATV accident report); Minn. Stat. § 84.9256, subd. 1(b)–(j) (youthful operator restrictions, safety certificate, supervision, engine-size exception), subd. 2(a)–(b) (helmet and seat belt for those under 18 on public land, public waters, or public road right-of-way), subd. 2a (parent or guardian authorization under 16), subd. 3 (person in lawful control); Minn. Stat. § 84.928, subd. 1a(e) (chapters 169 and 169A on streets and highways), subd. 2(1)–(9) (unsafe ATV operation, including the single-passenger rule and the ten-mile-per-hour rule within 100 feet on frozen public waters); Minn. Stat. § 84.771 (off-highway vehicle definition); Minn. Stat. § 466.03, subd. 6e (municipal parks and recreation areas exception, including the trespasser-conduct sentence); Minn. Stat. § 604A.21, subd. 5 (“recreational purpose” including snowmobiling), subd. 6 (“recreational trail use”), subd. 4 (“owner”); Minn. Stat. § 604A.22 and § 604A.25 (owner’s duty and the recreational trail use limitation in the second paragraph of § 604A.25); Minn. Stat. § 604.01, subd. 1 (comparative fault; the not-greater-than bar and proportional diminution); Minn. Stat. § 645.02 (default effective dates; the July 1 rule for an act having appropriation items); 2024 Minn. Laws ch. 104, art. 1, § 33 (session law adding § 169.09, subd. 19, including paragraph (c)); 49 U.S.C. § 30106(a), (d) (Graves Amendment; definitions of affiliate, owner, person); 49 U.S.C. § 30102(a)(7) (chapter 301 definition of “motor vehicle” — manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways). Cases: Stepec v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 301 Minn. 434, 437–38, 222 N.W.2d 796 (1974) (snowmobile is not a motor vehicle for uninsured-motorist purposes under the predecessor statute; “designed” construed); State Automobile & Casualty Underwriters v. Runia, 363 N.W.2d 818, 820–21 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985) (snowmobile falls outside the No-Fault definition of motor vehicle; Safety Responsibility Act does not apply to snowmobiles; policy may exceed statutory minimums but a policy definition does not supplement the statute; recreational vehicle endorsement does not expand the definition of “insured”); Kastner v. Star Trails Ass’n, 658 N.W.2d 890, 894, 896 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003) (grant-in-aid trail association immune under chapter 466 via § 84.83, subd. 4(a), including for signage and maintenance claims; association was an “owner” under § 604A.21, subd. 4 by virtue of control of the trail); Kastner v. Star Trails Ass’n, 646 N.W.2d 235 (Minn. 2002) (prior appeal; adopting the collateral order doctrine — cited here only to identify the procedural history). Statutory text retrieved from the Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes; session law from the Revisor’s 2024 session law archive; federal text from uscode.house.gov; opinion text from the Caselaw Access Project archive of the Minnesota Reports and North Western Reporter, Second Series. No citator was available, and none of the cases above was checked for subsequent negative treatment.
This article is general legal information about Minnesota law. It is not legal advice, it does not create an attorney–client relationship, and it does not promise or imply any particular outcome. Insurance coverage turns on the language of a specific policy, and statutes change; verify current text before relying on any provision discussed here.