Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-302 (2025)

“Yield” signs

✓ laws through the 2024 session: the source has not yet published 2025 Public Acts (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The Office of the State Traffic Administration, on any state highway, or a local traffic authority, on any highway under its control, may designate intersections at which signs bearing the words “Yield” may be erected. The driver of a vehicle approaching a “Yield” sign shall, in obedience to such sign, slow down to a speed reasonable for the existing conditions, and shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another highway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time such driver is moving across or within the intersection, provided, if such driver is involved in a collision, such collision shall be deemed prima facie evidence of such driver's failure to yield the right-of-way.

(1955, S. 1406d; February, 1965, P.A. 448, S. 40; P.A. 12-132, S. 33.)

History: 1965 act deleted reference to state aid highway, words “right-of-way” after “Yield” and provision specifying application of collision proviso was to collisions with pedestrians or other vehicles, and changed driver's duty on approaching sign from slowing to 10 miles per hour and yielding so as to avoid collision to slowing to reasonable speed so as to avoid hazard; P.A. 12-132 replaced “State Traffic Commission” with “Office of the State Traffic Administration”, effective July 1, 2012.

See Sec. 14-111g re operator's retraining program.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1972–2017 · leading case: Ventura v. Town of E. Haven, 154 A.3d 1020 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017).
Ventura v. Town of E. Haven, 154 A.3d 1020 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017). · cites it 2× “See General Statutes § 14-301. See General Statutes § 14-302.”
Ramonas v. Zucker, 302 A.2d 242 (Conn. 1972). · cites it 8× “” The defendants take the position that § 14-302 of the General Statutes, 1 has no application to the right-of-way between the Zucker and Megin vehicles and requested the court to charge that the presence of the “yield” sign was not a factor in the issue of liability “since the…”
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.