Ark. Code Ann. § 27-51-301 (2020)
Vehicles to be driven on right side of roadway — Exceptions
-
Except as otherwise provided in this section, upon all roadways of sufficient width, a vehicle shall not be driven upon the left half of the roadway, except as follows:
- When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction under the rules governing that movement;
- When the right half of a roadway is closed to traffic while under construction or repair;
- Upon a roadway divided into three (3) marked lanes for traffic under the rules applicable thereon;
- Upon a roadway designated and signposted for one-way traffic;
- When the right half of the roadway is in disrepair or is in an otherwise undrivable or unsafe condition; or
- When a vehicle is preparing to exit the roadway on the left.
- Motor vehicles shall not be operated continuously in the left lane of a multilane roadway whenever it impedes the flow of other traffic.
-
- The Arkansas Department of Transportation may designate certain multilane highways or portions of multilane highways as prohibiting continuous driving in the left lane except in those instances described in subsection (a) of this section.
- For those multilane highways or portions of multilane highways described in subdivision (c)(1) of this section and designated by the department, the department shall erect periodic signs along the multilane highway or portion of the multilane highway that notify the public of the prohibition.
History. Acts 1937, No. 300, § 56; Pope's Dig., § 6714; A.S.A. 1947, § 75-607; Acts 1997, No. 854, § 1; 2013, No. 965, § 1; 2017, No. 707, § 350.
Amendments. The 2013 amendment, in (a), substituted “except as otherwise provided in this section, upon” for “Upon” and “left” for “right”; inserted “not” after “a vehicle shall” in (a)(1); and inserted (a)(5), (a)(6), and (c).
The 2017 amendment substituted “Department of Transportation” for “State Highway and Transportation Department” in (c)(1).
Case Notes
Applicability.
Police officer was entitled as a matter of law to qualified immunity on civil rights and tort claims asserted by appellee father because the undisputed facts demonstrated probable cause for the father's arrest for driving on the wrong side of the road in contravention of subsection (a) of this section. Martin v. Hallum, 2010 Ark. App. 193, 374 S.W.3d 152 (2010).
Evidence of Negligence.
A violation of this section, while not conclusive of the issue, may be evidence of negligence on the part of the violator. Kisor v. Tulsa Rendering Co., 113 F. Supp. 10 (W.D. Ark. 1953).
Fact that truck traveled distance of 100 yards on left side of pavement, continued on left shoulder, struck culvert, and overturned without driver having applied brakes or attempted to turn right showed this section had been violated, and this fact was evidence of negligence. Frisby v. Olin Mathieson Chem. Corp., 279 F.2d 939 (8th Cir. 1960).
Impeding Traffic.
Police officer had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant's vehicle after he observed that defendant's vehicle was obstructing traffic in the left lane. Sims v. State, 356 Ark. 507, 157 S.W.3d 530 (2004).
Instructions.
Where the only action on the plaintiff's part, which the defendant insisted contributed to the plaintiff's injury, was that he was in the act of passing a parked truck and had not succeeded in getting back on his side of the road when the collision occurred, an instruction that the jury should find for the defendant if the plaintiff was not on his side of the road did not omit the defense of contributory negligence. Standard Materials Corp. v. Johnson, 205 Ark. 562, 169 S.W.2d 590 (1943).
In a wrongful death action brought by the personal representative of the guest passenger of a deceased automobile driver, an instruction that violation of this section by the driver, if established by the evidence, could be considered by the jury in determining whether or not the driver was guilty of willful or wanton misconduct in the operation of the vehicle was properly refused, as it would have led the jury to the erroneous belief that such violation was evidence of willful and wanton misconduct. Shearer v. Newsom, 250 Ark. 33, 463 S.W.2d 642 (1971).
Jury Questions.
One driving a vehicle had to keep to the right side of the road, and whether this requirement was done or not was a question for the jury in determining the question of negligence. Northwestern Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Rose, 185 Ark. 263, 46 S.W.2d 796 (1932) (decision under prior law).
Jury Trial.
Appellate court erred in reversing and dismissing case, in which defendant was convicted for driving left of center, for failure to grant a jury trial rather than remanding the case, because: 1) defendant sought reversal and remand; 2) such failure does not require dismissal under the double jeopardy clause; and 3) defendant should have been given a chance to have his case fairly put to a jury. Elmore v. State, 305 Ark. 426, 809 S.W.2d 370 (1991), modified, 305 Ark. 426, 809 S.W.2d 370 (1991).
Traffic Stops.
As the evidence showed that a deputy sheriff had probable cause to believe that defendant's vehicle had violated this section by crossing the center line by three feet, the deputy's traffic stop was constitutional. Webb v. State, 2011 Ark. 430, 385 S.W.3d 152 (2011).
Cited: Williamson v. Rainwater, 236 Ark. 885, 370 S.W.2d 443 (1963); Smith v. City of Little Rock, 305 Ark. 168, 806 S.W.2d 371 (1991); King v. State, 42 Ark. App. 97, 854 S.W.2d 362 (1993); Hoay v. State, 75 Ark. App. 103, 55 S.W.3d 782 (2001); Tiller v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 431, 439 S.W.3d 705 (2014); Lockhart v. State, 2017 Ark. 13, 508 S.W.3d 869 (2017).