A. On a highway outside of a business or residence district, a person shall not stop, park or leave standing a vehicle, whether attended or unattended, on the paved or main traveled part of the highway if it is practicable to stop, park or leave the vehicle off that part of the highway. If a person stops, parks or leaves standing a vehicle, the person shall leave an unobstructed width of the highway opposite the standing vehicle for the free passage of other vehicles and a clear view of the standing vehicle shall be available from a distance of two hundred feet in each direction on the highway.
B. This section does not apply to:
1. The driver of a vehicle that is disabled while on the paved or main traveled portion of a highway in a manner and to an extent that it is impossible to avoid stopping and temporarily leaving the disabled vehicle in that position.
2. A vehicle or the driver of a vehicle engaged in the official delivery of the United States mail that stops on the right-hand side of the highway for the purpose of picking up or delivering mail if the following conditions are met:
(a) A clear view of the vehicle is available from a distance of three hundred feet in each direction on the highway or a flashing amber light at least four inches in diameter with the letters "stop" printed on the light is attached to the rear of the vehicle.
(b) The vehicle has a uniform sign that:
(i) Is at least fourteen inches in diameter.
(ii) Has the words "U.S. mail" printed on the sign.
(iii) Is attached to the rear of the vehicle.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases, 1965–1996 · leading case:
Salinas v. Kahn, 407 P.2d 120 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1965).
Salinas v. Kahn, 407 P.2d 120 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1965).
· cites it 14× “19), over appellants’ objection that there was no evidence to support such an instruction, was one which contained the following language from A.R.S. § 28-871: “Upon any highway outside of a business or residence district no person shall stop, park or leave standing any vehicle,…”
Gittings v. Am. Fam. Ins., 888 P.2d 1363 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 8× “The appellants contended there was no evidence from which a jury could conclude they were negligent and claimed error in the giving of the following instruction, quoting from A.R.S. § 28-871: ‘Upon any highway outside of a business or residence district no person shall stop,…”
Tansy v. Morgan, 604 P.2d 626 (Ariz. 1979).
· cites it 6× “The jury, therefore, could reasonably conclude that it was “practicable” for the plaintiff to stop her vehicle off the highway and that failure to do so was a “stop” in violation of A.R.S. § 28-871 A. Plaintiffs also contend that the Legislature did not intend A.”
Bliss v. Treece, 658 P.2d 169 (Ariz. 1983).
· cites it 2× “§ 28-602(19) (specific exceptions to definition of “stop, stopping or standing”); 9A A.R.S. § 28-871(B) and Krauth v. Billar, 71 Ariz.”
Finn v. J. H. Rose Truck Lines, 398 P.2d 935 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1965).
· cites it 4× “These are A.R.S. §§ 28-871 and 28-961, which read insofar as they are pertinent to this action: “Upon any highway outside of a business or residence district no person shall stop, park or leave standing any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, upon the paved or main traveled…”
Worthington v. Funk, 442 P.2d 153 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1968).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiff objects to the giving of an instruction as to the requirement to park a disabled car off the highway if practicable, A.R.S. § 28-871, and to the giving of instructions pertaining to the giving of signals when stopping, A.”
Hing v. Youtsey, 460 P.2d 646 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1969).
· cites it 2× “Furthermore, they had not removed the un-disabled vehicle driven by Matthews from the highway, in violation of A.R.S. § 28-871, subsec. A as amended, even though there was sufficient room to park on the 50-foot shoulder available at that location.”
Brand v. J. H. Rose Trucking Co., 418 P.2d 120 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1966).
· cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 28-871, subsec. A. Additionally, we have here the overheight permit in evidence, which clearly requires the permittee to “ * * * detour underpasses.”
United States v. Seymour, 933 F. Supp. 867 (D. Ariz. 1996).
“In fact, the same general DPS Order allows for officers to remove vehicles pursuant to AES §§ 28-871 and 28-872 and for seizure pursuant to law.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-871(B) — 1 case
Bliss v. Treece, 658 P.2d 169 (Ariz. 1983).
“§ 28-602(19) (specific exceptions to definition of “stop, stopping or standing”); 9A A.R.S. § 28-871(B) and Krauth v. Billar, 71 Ariz.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.