O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 40-1-3 (2019)

Requiring or permitting unlawful operation of vehicle

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

It is unlawful for the owner or any other person employing or otherwise directing the driver of any vehicle to require or knowingly permit the operation of such vehicle upon a highway in any manner contrary to law.

History

Ga. L. 1953, Nov.-Dec. Sess., p. 556, § 122; Ga. L. 1990, p. 2048, § 1.

MOTOR VEHICLES & TRAFFIC

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Code 1910, § 1770(1), are included in the annotations for this Code section. “Automobile” defined. - Term “automobile” has a definite popular significance and is understood to refer to a wheeled vehicle, propelled by gasoline, steam, or electricity, and used for the transportation of persons or merchandise. Carter v. State, 12 Ga. App. 430, 78 S.E. 205, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 586 (1913) (decided under former Code 1910, § 1770(1)). Words, “propelled by steam, gas, gasoline, electricity, or any other power than muscular,” referred to the phrase “any other vehicle,” and not to the word “automobile.” Carter v. State, 12 Ga. App. 430, 78 S.E. 205, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 586 (1913) (decided under former Code 1910, § 1770(1)). Former Code 1910, § 1770 included a motorcycle propelled by gasoline. Bonds v. State, 16 Ga. App. 401, 85 S.E. 629, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 646 (1915)

(decided under former Code 1910, § 1770(1)). Use of intoximeter results obtained from driver. - If the state wants to prosecute a party who allowed an intoxicated driver to operate an automobile in violation of the statute governing driving under the influence, the state can use the intoximeter results obtained from the accused operator only if the state can prove that the state’s evidence meets the statutory requirements for admissibility under O.C.G.A. § 40-6-392. Munda v. State, 172 Ga. App. 857, 324 S.E.2d 799, 1984 Ga. App. LEXIS 2690 (1984). Standing to contest admissibility of intoximeter test. - Person charged with permitting another person to operate an automobile contrary to the law governing driving under the influence has standing to contest the admissibility of an intoximeter test under the statute governing the introduction of such evidence. Munda v. State, 172 Ga. App. 857, 324 S.E.2d 799, 1984 Ga. App. LEXIS 2690 (1984).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Unsafe bus on highways for purpose other than repairs. - Once a school bus has been declared unsafe, a misdemeanor citation may be issued each time the bus is found moving on the highways for purposes other than effecting the requisite repairs. 1974 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 74-31. Issuance of citation to persons other than driver of unsafe vehicle. -

Citations may be issued not only to the driver of an unsafe vehicle, but also to any person who knew the vehicle to be in an unsafe condition and yet ordered or directed the driver to take the vehicle upon the highways, and to the owner of the vehicle if the owner knew of the unsafe condition and yet permitted continued operation of the vehicle. 1974 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 74-31.

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 7A Am. Jur. 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, §§ 223, 236, 268, 285, 286.

C.J.S. 61A C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, §§ 1504 et seq., 1639, 1640, 1751 et seq.

IDENTIFICATION & REGULATION

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1984–1984 · leading case: Munda v. State, 324 S.E.2d 799 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984).
Munda v. State, 324 S.E.2d 799 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 16× “Appellant was tried before a jury and found guilty of violating OCGA § 40-1-3, in that he had permitted an intoxicated driver to operate an automobile.”
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.