Ark. Code Ann. » Title 27 Chapter 51
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 27-51-202 (2026)

Restrictions not applicable to emergency vehicles — Definition

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
    1. The prima facie speed limitations under this subchapter do not apply to authorized emergency vehicles responding to emergency calls when the driver of the emergency vehicle is operating the vehicle's emergency lights and is also operating an audible signal by bell, siren, or exhaust whistle if other vehicles are present.
    2. The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle operated as a police vehicle is not required to operate a siren or flashing lights when operating the emergency vehicle as authorized under § 27-51-906.
  2. This section does not relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons using the street, nor shall it protect the driver of any emergency vehicle from the consequence of a reckless disregard of the safety of others.
  3. For purposes of this section, “emergency calls” means legitimate emergency situations which call for the operation of an emergency vehicle.

History. Acts 1937, No. 300, § 55; Pope's Dig., § 6713; A.S.A. 1947, § 75-606; Acts 2001, No. 332, § 1; 2001, No. 1415, § 1; 2017, No. 793, § 3.

Amendments. The 2017 amendment redesignated former (a) as (a)(1); added (a)(2); deleted “including a police vehicle” at the end of (c); and made stylistic changes.

Research References

Ark. L. Rev.

Torts — Duty of Emergency Vehicles, 21 Ark. L. Rev. 272 (1967).

City of Caddo Valley v. George: Stop or I'll Sue! Police Chases and the Price Cities May Pay, 55 Ark. L. Rev. 425 (2002).

Case Notes

Negligence.

The officers were negligent in continuing the high-speed pursuit once they knew of conditions which could create a danger to innocent bystanders; it was their duty, once they knew of the roadblock, to exercise ordinary care for the safety of others using the highway. City of Caddo Valley v. George, 340 Ark. 203, 9 S.W.3d 481 (2000).

Standard of Care.

The driver of an emergency vehicle is held to a standard of ordinary care. City of Little Rock v. Weber, 298 Ark. 382, 767 S.W.2d 529 (1989).

Cited: Freeman v. Reeves, 241 Ark. 867, 410 S.W.2d 740 (1967).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1989–2000 · leading case: City of Caddo Valley v. George, 9 S.W.3d 481 (Ark. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Caddo Valley v. George, 9 S.W.3d 481 (Ark. 2000). · cites it 4× “2d 655 (1983), the Kansas Supreme Court held that an officer pursuing a fleeing vehicle was immune from suit on the basis of a Kansas statute, similar to Ark.Code Ann. § 27-51-202 (Repl.1994), which relieves drivers of emergency vehicles of the responsibility to obey speed…”
City of Little Rock v. Weber, 767 S.W.2d 529 (Ark. 1989). “§§ 27-51-202(a) and 27-51-204(b)(l) (1987) exempt drivers of emergency vehicles from the speed limitations applicable to other vehicles.”
Ark. Code Ann. § 27-51-202(a): 1 case
City of Little Rock v. Weber, 767 S.W.2d 529 (Ark. 1989). “§§ 27-51-202(a) and 27-51-204(b)(l) (1987) exempt drivers of emergency vehicles from the speed limitations applicable to other vehicles.”
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.