A. A person shall not:
1. Drive or move and the owner shall not knowingly cause or permit to be driven or moved on a highway a vehicle or combination of vehicles that:
(a) Is in an unsafe condition that endangers a person.
(b) Does not contain those parts or is not at all times equipped with lamps and other equipment in proper condition and adjustment as required in this article.
(c) Is equipped in any manner in violation of this article.
2. Do an act forbidden or fail to perform an act required under this article.
B. This article does not prohibit the use of additional parts and accessories on a vehicle if the use is not inconsistent with this article.
C. The provisions of this article with respect to equipment on vehicles do not apply to:
1. Trailers used solely in the operation of a farm for the transportation of the unprocessed fiber products on the farm or from the farm to a cotton gin, road machinery, road rollers, farm tractors or implements of husbandry when the implement is being incidentally operated or moved on a highway whether as a trailer or self-propelled unit. Notwithstanding this paragraph, a farm tractor equipped with an electric lighting system shall display at all times mentioned in section 28-922 a red tail lamp and either multiple beam or single beam head lamps meeting the requirements of sections 28-925, 28-941 and 28-943. For the purposes of this paragraph, "incidentally operated or moved on a highway" means travel between a farm and another part of the same farm, from one farm to another farm or between a farm and a place of repair, supply or storage.
2. Vehicles driven by enforcement officers of the Arizona game and fish department in conducting night patrols and investigating night poaching activities.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1977–2023 · leading case:
Hutto v. Francisco, 107 P.3d 934 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
Hutto v. Francisco, 107 P.3d 934 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 8× “¶ 12 Plaintiff first argues that Defendants were negligent per se because they failed to reinstall the safety belts, thus allowing the truck to be driven in an unsafe condition in violation of A.R.S. § 28-921(A)(1)(a) (2004). “Negligence per se applies when there has been a…”
Williams v. Thude, 885 P.2d 1096 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 4× “See AR.S. § 28-921(0 (1989) (“The provisions of this article with respect to equipment on vehicles shall not apply to implements of husbandry____”).”
State of Arizona v. Guillermo C. Becerra, 291 P.3d 994 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “And A.R.S. § 28-921 provides a person shall not drive a vehicle “in an unsafe condition that endangers a person.”
State v. Jacobson, 588 P.2d 358 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 4× “Appellant argues that Title 28 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, and particularly §§ 28-921 to 28-964 (which specify various types of equipment which are required or prohibited on motor vehicles), is such a complete and comprehensive scheme of motor vehicle regulation that…”
Siverson v. Martori, 581 P.2d 285 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 12× “§ 28-921(A) provides: It is a misdemeanor for any person to drive or move or for the owner to cause or knowingly permit to be driven or moved on any highway any vehicle or combination of vehicles which is in such unsafe condition as to endanger any person, or which does not…”
Sullivan v. Green Mfg. Co., 575 P.2d 811 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 28-921(C) exempts from the requirements of that article, among other types of vehicles, “implements of husbandry.”
Sean Bonnette v. Mg Fin. Enter., LLC A & G Car Sales, LLC (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 2× “¶11 The Lemon Law provides that the implied warranty “is met” if the vehicle satisfies two conditions: (1) it must function in a safe condition as provided in A.R.S. §§ 28-921 to 28-966; and (2) it must be substantially free of any defect that significantly limits its use for…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-921(A) — 1 case
Siverson v. Martori, 581 P.2d 285 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978).
“§ 28-921(A) provides: It is a misdemeanor for any person to drive or move or for the owner to cause or knowingly permit to be driven or moved on any highway any vehicle or combination of vehicles which is in such unsafe condition as to endanger any person, or which does not…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-921(A)(1)(a) — 3 cases
Hutto v. Francisco, 107 P.3d 934 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
“¶ 12 Plaintiff first argues that Defendants were negligent per se because they failed to reinstall the safety belts, thus allowing the truck to be driven in an unsafe condition in violation of A.R.S. § 28-921(A)(1)(a) (2004). “Negligence per se applies when there has been a…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-921(A)(1)(b) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-921(A)(l)(a) — 1 case
Hutto v. Francisco, 107 P.3d 934 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
“¶ 12 Plaintiff first argues that Defendants were negligent per se because they failed to reinstall the safety belts, thus allowing the truck to be driven in an unsafe condition in violation of A.R.S. § 28-921(A)(1)(a) (2004). “Negligence per se applies when there has been a…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-921(B) — 1 case
State v. Jacobson, 588 P.2d 358 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978).
“Appellant argues that Title 28 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, and particularly §§ 28-921 to 28-964 (which specify various types of equipment which are required or prohibited on motor vehicles), is such a complete and comprehensive scheme of motor vehicle regulation that…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-921(C) — 1 case
Sullivan v. Green Mfg. Co., 575 P.2d 811 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977).
“A.R.S. § 28-921(C) exempts from the requirements of that article, among other types of vehicles, “implements of husbandry.”
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.