CopyCited 10 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 13, 2002 | 275 Ga. 181, 2002 Fulton County D. Rep. 1407
...shoulder, or section separating the roadways of a divided highway." [8] The distinction between the roadway, on which travel is permitted, and the other paved portions of the highway, on which travel is not permitted, is further illustrated by OCGA §
40-6-275(c), which requires drivers in accidents not involving serious injuries or fatalities to remove their vehicles "from the immediate confines of the roadway into a safe refuge on the shoulder, emergency lane, or median or to a place otherwis...
...427, 427,
395 S.E.2d 816 (1990). [4] Rouse v. Department of Nat. Resources,
271 Ga. 726, 728-729,
524 S.E.2d 455 (1999) (punctuation omitted). [5] Id. at 729,
524 S.E.2d 455. [6] OCGA §
40-1-1(19). [7] OCGA §
40-1-1(53). [8] OCGA §
40-6-50(b). [9] The current version of OCGA §
40-6-275 became effective on April 28, 1999, after an amendment made in response to this Court's decision in State v....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 19, 1998 | 270 Ga. 111
...Cranford, Solicitor General, Robert Stokely, Asst. Solicitor, Newnan, for the State. Gus L. Wood, III, Walter W. Arnall, Wood, Odom & Edge, P.A., Newnan, for Johnny Brooks Johnson. THOMPSON, Justice. This is a case of first impression in which we are asked to decide whether OCGA §
40-6-275 is unconstitutionally vague....
...r-trailer. The three occupants of the pickup truck were killed. Via accusation, Johnson was charged with three counts of vehicular homicide in the second degree. See OCGA §
40-6-393(b). These charges were predicated on the alleged violation of OCGA §
40-6-275. Johnson moved to quash the accusation, asserting the unconstitutionality of OCGA §
40-6-275....
...To withstand a vagueness attack, a statute " `must so definitely and certainly define the offense that a person of reasonable understanding can know at the time of the commission of the act that the law is being violated.' [Cit.]" Bilbrey v. State,
254 Ga. 629, 631,
331 S.E.2d 551 (1985). OCGA §
40-6-275 fails to meet this test. The statute requires the driver of a vehicle involved in a traffic accident on a multilane highway to move his vehicle out of harm's way unless the accident includes personal injury, death, or extensive property damage. OCGA §
40-6-275(c)....
...property damage" depend upon the cost of repairs? If so, does the term mean the cost of repairs must exceed $500, $1,000, or $5,000? Reasonable people will differ in their approach to these questionsand the statute provides no answers. Thus, OCGA §
40-6-275 compels a driver who is involved in an accident and who believes in good faith that a vehicle has incurred "extensive" property damage, to leave *445 his vehicle in the roadway at his peril, not knowing whether others will conclude that t...
...The majority does away with the statutory duty of motorists to remove vehicles involved in certain traffic accidents which occur on expressways and multi-lane highways by declaring unconstitutionally vague the statute which embodies that duty, OCGA
40-6-275(c). [3] The majority believes OCGA §
40-6-275(c) compels a driver involved in an accident on an expressway to leave his vehicle in the roadway if the driver thinks that a vehicle involved in the accident has suffered "extensive property damage." Because the majority believes that "ex...
...cessary. OCGA §
40-6-270(a). Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. In the case at bar, the defendant was charged by accusation with three counts of homicide by vehicle (OCGA §
40-6-393(b)) due to his alleged violation of his duty, set forth in OCGA §
40-6-275(c), to remove his vehicle from the expressway following his tractor-trailer's collision with a passenger car during an allegedly improper lane change which Johnson attempted while traveling north on I-85 around 7:45 a.m. The passenger car stopped in the median emergency lane some 50-100 feet from the impact, and Johnson stopped his truck in the center lane of the expressway's three northbound lanes 250-300 feet from the accident site. OCGA
40-6-275 mandates that the driver of a motor vehicle involved in a traffic accident on a multi-lane highway which does not result in *446 death, personal injury, or extensive property damage move his vehicle from the roadway if it can be done safely and the vehicle is capable of being normally and safely driven. The defendant sought to quash the accusation and citations [4] on the ground that OCGA §
40-6-275(c) violated his right to due process guaranteed by the federal and state constitutions because it was unconstitutionally vague....
...ndated activity. Hargrove v. State,
253 Ga. 450(1),
321 S.E.2d 104 (1984). The initial rule of statutory construction is to look diligently for the legislative intent. OCGA §
1-3-1(a). From the uncodified preamble to the legislation from which OCGA §
40-6-275 was carved, we can ascertain that the Legislature enacted the statute with the intent of promoting safety on the crowded, fast-paced expressways of Georgia....
...Ga. L. 742. Furthermore, since its inception, the statute has made the legislative concern for the safety of the motoring public paramount by providing that the duty to remove a vehicle takes precedence over "any other law to the contrary...." OCGA §
40-6-275(a). Finally, when OCGA §
40-6-275(c) is examined in light of other statutory duties which come into play when a motor vehicle accident occurs, one sees that OCGA §
40-6-275(c) furthers the General Assembly's goal of removing from the roadway vehicles involved in certain traffic accidents....
...thout obstructing traffic more than is necessary, with the additional caveat that the removal be accomplished only if done safely by a licensed driver, with the vehicle operating under its own power and in the customary manner. Even if one construes §
40-6-275(a) as prohibiting the removal of vehicles from the accident site where the accident resulted in personal injury, death, or extensive property damage, this exemption was likely enacted to preserve the scene until a law enforcement officer has made the measurements and diagrams necessary for the initial accident investigation. See, e.g., OCGA §
40-6-275(g)....
...Even if death, injury or "extensive physical damage" had resulted, because neither vehicle was at the accident scene, there was no accident scene to preserve and no reason to stop an undamaged vehicle in the middle of the expressway. Because the majority has declared OCGA §
40-6-275 unconstitutional on its face and because I believe that the statute is not void for vagueness when applied to the facts of this case, I must respectfully dissent. I am authorized to state that Justice Carley and Justice Hines join this dissent. NOTES [1] OCGA §
40-6-275 applies "to motor vehicle traffic accidents which occur on the expressways and multilane highways of this state." Subsection (c) of that statute reads: "When a motor vehicle traffic accident occurs with no personal injury, death, or exten...
