O.C.G.A.
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.
(a) No person shall drive a vehicle when it is so loaded or when there are in the front seat such a number of persons, exceeding three, as to obstruct the view of the driver to the front or sides of the vehicle or as to interfere with the driver’s control over the driving mechanism of the vehicle. (b) No passenger in a vehicle shall ride in such position or commit any act as to interfere with the driver’s view ahead or to the sides or to interfere with his control over the driving mechanism of the vehicle.
History
(Ga. L. 1953, Nov.-Dec. Sess., p. 556, § 96; Code 1933, § 68A-1104, enacted by Ga. L. 1974, p. 633, § 1; Ga. L. 1990, p. 2048, § 5.)
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Cited in Reed v. Dixon, 153 Ga. App. 604, 266 S.E.2d 286 (1980); Pate v. Seaboard R.R., Inc., 819 F.2d 1074 (11th Cir.
1987); Worthy v. Kendall, 222 Ga. App. 324, 474 S.E.2d 627 (1996); State v. Bute, 250 Ga. App. 479, 552 S.E.2d 465 (2001).
RESEARCH REFERENCES C.J.S. - 60A C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, § 650 et seq. ALR. - Negligence of automobile pas-
senger as to lookout or other precaution as affecting question of negligence or contributory negligence of driver, 165 A.L.R. 596.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases, 1985–2001 · leading case:
State v. Bute, 552 S.E.2d 465 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001).
State v. Bute, 552 S.E.2d 465 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 16× “Following the trial court’s grant of Victor Albert Bute’s motion to suppress marijuana found in his automobile, the State appeals, contending that the arresting officer properly stopped Bute’s truck to investigate a violation of OCGA § 40-6-242 (a). For the reasons outlined…”
Lewis v. Seaboard R.R., 819 F.2d 1074 (11th Cir. 1987).
· cites it 5× “§ 40-6-242(b), to its companion statutory provision, O.C.G.A. § 40-6-242(a), suggests that the charge is properly construed as imposing a duty on passengers.”
Brown v. Sims, 329 S.E.2d 523 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “Such conduct by appellants’ daughter would constitute a violation of OCGA § 40-6-242 (b) (former Code Ann. § 68A-1104 (b)), which prohibits passengers from riding “in such position as to interfere with the driver’s view ahead or to the sides.”
Worthy v. Kendall, 474 S.E.2d 627 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “As long as there is some slight “indirect evidence from which a jury might infer that” a passenger was riding in a position that is likely to interfere with the driver’s view ahead or to the sides in violation of OCGA § 40-6-242 (b), it is not an error to give a charge on…”
— 40-6-242(a) — 1 case
Lewis v. Seaboard R.R., 819 F.2d 1074 (11th Cir. 1987).
“§ 40-6-242(b), to its companion statutory provision, O.C.G.A. § 40-6-242(a), suggests that the charge is properly construed as imposing a duty on passengers.”
— 40-6-242(b) — 1 case
Lewis v. Seaboard R.R., 819 F.2d 1074 (11th Cir. 1987).
“§ 40-6-242(b), to its companion statutory provision, O.C.G.A. § 40-6-242(a), suggests that the charge is properly construed as imposing a duty on passengers.”
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.