Ark. Code Ann. » Title 27 Chapter 36
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 27-36-211 (2026)

Use of multiple-beam road lighting equipment

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Whenever a motor vehicle is being operated on a roadway or shoulder adjacent thereto during the times specified in § 27-36-204, the driver shall use a distribution of light, or composite beam, directed high enough and of sufficient intensity to reveal persons and vehicles at a safe distance in advance of the vehicle, subject to the following requirements and limitations:

    1. Whenever a driver of a vehicle approaches an oncoming vehicle within five hundred feet (500'), the driver shall use a distribution of light, or composite beam, so aimed that the glaring rays are not projected into the eyes of the oncoming driver.
    2. The lowermost distribution of light, or composite beam, specified in § 27-36-210(b)(2) shall be deemed to avoid glare at all times, regardless of road contour and loading; and
  2. Whenever the driver of a vehicle follows another vehicle within two hundred feet (200') to the rear, except when engaged in the act of overtaking and passing, the driver shall use a distribution of light permissible under this subchapter other than the uppermost distribution of light specified in § 27-36-210(b)(1).

History. Acts 1937, No. 300, § 116; Pope's Dig., § 6776; Acts 1955, No. 158, § 2; A.S.A. 1947, § 75-714.

Case Notes

Jury Questions.

Whether driver's failure to dim his lights constituted negligence under the circumstances was for the jury. Ward v. Walker, 206 Ark. 988, 178 S.W.2d 62 (1944).

Questions whether drivers using just lower beams in passing were negligent and whether pedestrian was contributorily negligent were for jury. Haralson v. Jones Truck Lines, 223 Ark. 813, 270 S.W.2d 892 (1954).

Failure of parked car to dim lights as required is evidence of negligence and can be considered by jury as proximate cause of accident. Riley v. Johnson, 239 Ark. 37, 386 S.W.2d 942 (1965).

Jury could have found driver's failure to see obstruction at distance less than illuminated by headlights indicated he was not keeping a proper lookout. Greyhound Lines v. Harmon, 239 Ark. 1031, 396 S.W.2d 291 (1965).

Valid Traffic Stop.

Because defendant did not dim his headlights at all for oncoming vehicles, an officer had probable cause to believe that a traffic violation had occurred under this section, and the officer's misstatement about the distance requirement of the statute made no legal difference in the establishment of probable cause for the traffic stop. Rodriguez v. State, 2009 Ark. App. 508, 324 S.W.3d 368 (2009).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2009–2024 · leading case: Rodriguez v. State, 324 S.W.3d 368 (Ark. Ct. App. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rodriguez v. State, 324 S.W.3d 368 (Ark. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “Specifically, Rodriguez asserts that the officer misstated the distance requirements of the statute pertaining to the failure to dim headlights.”
State v. L. Gardner, 2022 MT 3 (Mont. 2022). “But even a conscientious driver, desirous of following the law, would find it difficult to determine whether an oncoming vehicle on a dark, two-lane road with no visible landrnarks is 1000 feet away or 750 feet away—especially if that vehicle's brights are illuminated.”
Spears v. Osceola Police Dep't (E.D. Ark. 2024). “§ 27-36-211. Spears admits that he was talking on his cell phone and that his high beams were on when Officer Dunkin stopped him.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 27-36-211(1)(A) — 1 case
Rodriguez v. State, 324 S.W.3d 368 (Ark. Ct. App. 2009). “Specifically, Rodriguez asserts that the officer misstated the distance requirements of the statute pertaining to the failure to dim headlights.”
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.