O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 40-6-23 (2019)

Flashing circular red or yellow signals

✓ 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

Flashing signal indications shall have the following meanings: (1) Flashing circular red (stop signal) - When a red lens is illuminated with rapid intermittent flashes, drivers of vehicles shall stop at a clearly marked stop line or, if there is no stop line, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if there is no crosswalk, at the point nearest the intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway before entering the intersection, and the right to proceed shall be subject to the rules applicable after making a stop at a stop sign; (2) Flashing circular yellow (caution signal) - When a yellow lens is illuminated with rapid intermittent flashes, drivers of vehicles may proceed through the intersection or past such signal only with caution.

History

(Ga. L. 1953, Nov.-Dec. Sess., p. 556, § 37; Code 1933, § 68A-204, enacted by Ga. L. 1974, p. 633, § 1; Ga. L. 1990, p. 2048, § 5; Ga. L. 2017, p. 720, § 4/HB 328.)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS No judicial notice of familiarity with highway manual. - Interpretation of signs and signals as provided by the manual of the State Highway Board (now State Transportation Board) is not a matter of which the court can take judicial cognizance, nor one which the court can presume that every motorist is familiar with, to the extent of imposing penal sanctions for disobedience thereof. Maxwell v. State, 97 Ga. App. 334, 103 S.E.2d 162 (1958).

Sufficient evidence to find defendant drivers negligent. - Under an application of the rules of law to the facts, the jury was authorized to find from the evidence adduced upon the trial, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, that the defendant drivers were grossly negligent in causing the plaintiff ’s injuries. Lawrence v. Hayes, 92 Ga. App. 778, 90 S.E.2d 102 (1955). Cited in State v. Shabazz, 291 Ga. App. 751, 662 S.E.2d 828 (2008).

RESEARCH REFERENCES C.J.S. - 60A C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, §§ 840, 841. ALR. - Liability for automobile acci-

dent at intersection as affected by reliance upon or disregard of unchanging stop signal or sign, 3 A.L.R.3d 180.

Liability for automobile accident at intersection as affected by reliance upon or disregard of unchanging caution, slow, danger, or like sign or signal, 3 A.L.R.3d 507.

Liability for collision of automobile with pedestrian at intersection as affected by reliance upon or disregard of traffic sign or signal other than stop-and-go signal, 3 A.L.R.3d 557.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2001–2025 · leading case: Connell v. Riggins, 944 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).
Connell v. Riggins, 944 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). “" Ga.Code Ann. § 40-6-23(2). Although "with caution" is not defined in the statute, it "must entail, at a minimum, keeping a proper lookout for other vehicles approaching the intersection.”
Lewis v. Ready, 544 S.E.2d 502 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “Pursuant to OCGA § 40-6-23 (2), “drivers of vehicles may proceed through the intersection or past such signal only with caution.”
Jalen Bass v. Roland Jones, Jr. (11th Cir. 2025). “See Ga. Code Ann. § 40-6-23 (1). Officer Jones stated that Bass was slurring his words.”
— 40-6-23(2) — 1 case
Connell v. Riggins, 944 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). “" Ga.Code Ann. § 40-6-23(2). Although "with caution" is not defined in the statute, it "must entail, at a minimum, keeping a proper lookout for other vehicles approaching the intersection.”
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.