O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 40-6-45 (2019)

Further limitations on driving on left of center of roadway

✓ 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

(a) No vehicle shall be driven on the left side of a roadway designed and authorized for traffic traveling in opposite directions under the following conditions: (1) When approaching or upon the crest of a grade or a curve in the highway where the driver’s view is obstructed within such distance as to create a hazard in the event another vehicle might approach from the opposite direction; (2) When traversing any: (A) Intersection which is clearly marked by a solid barrier line placed on the right-hand element of a combination stripe along the center or lane line or by a solid double yellow line; or (B) Railroad grade crossing; or (3) When the view is obstructed upon approaching within 100 feet of any bridge, viaduct, or tunnel. (b) The foregoing limitations shall not apply upon a one-way roadway nor under the conditions described in paragraph (2) of subsection (a) of Code Section 40-6-40 nor to the driver of a vehicle turning left into or from an alley, private road, driveway, or roadway.

History

(Ga. L. 1953, Nov.-Dec. Sess., p. 556, § 59; Code 1933, § 68A-306, enacted by Ga. L. 1974, p. 633, § 1; Ga. L. 1990, p. 2048, § 5; Ga. L. 2000, p. 1313, § 3.)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Constitutionality. - See Garrett v. Department of Pub. Safety, 237 Ga. 413, 228 S.E.2d 812 (1976). Finding of negligence by defendant. - When the defendant could have avoided collision by turning to left, failure to turn was negligence. When, under the allegations of the petition, the defendant by defendant’s asserted negligence in traveling at an illegal and excessive speed while approaching an intersection and in failing to maintain a vigilant lookout produced a condition of danger of imminent collision with the plaintiff ’s auto which

could have been averted by defendant’s turning to the left side of the roadway, the defendant’s failure to turn under the alleged conditions was a proper specification of negligence, notwithstanding the provisions of Ga. L. 1953, Nov.-Dec. Sess., p. 556. Fisher v. Temple, 109 Ga. App. 859, 137 S.E.2d 545 (1964). Cited in Lott v. Smith, 153 Ga. App. 365, 265 S.E.2d 291 (1980); Gray v. State, 156 Ga. App. 117, 274 S.E.2d 115 (1980); Whitehead v. Cogar, 180 Ga. App. 812, 350 S.E.2d 821 (1986); Worthy v. Kendall, 222 Ga. App. 324, 474 S.E.2d 627 (1996).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 7A Am. Jur. 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, §§ 251, 252. C.J.S. - 60A C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, §§ 652, 659 et seq. ALR. - Reciprocal duties of drivers of automobiles or other vehicles proceeding in the same direction, 24 A.L.R. 507; 47 A.L.R. 703; 62 A.L.R. 970; 104 A.L.R. 485. Rights and liabilities as between driv-

ers of motor vehicles proceeding in same direction, where one or both attempt to pass on left of another vehicle so proceeding, 27 A.L.R.2d 317. Construction, applicability, and effect of traffic regulation prohibiting vehicles from passing one another at street or highway intersection, 53 A.L.R.2d 850.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1983–2011 · leading case: Whitehead v. Cogar, 350 S.E.2d 821 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Whitehead v. Cogar, 350 S.E.2d 821 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 4× “Whitehead moved for a new trial on the basis of an allegedly improper jury instruction quoting a statute, OCGA § 40-6-45, which prohibits a vehicle’s being driven on the left side of the road — specifically, inter alia, when it is approaching the crest of a grade.”
Wright v. State, 697 S.E.2d 296 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “, OCGA § 40-6-40 (a) (“a vehicle shall be driven on the right half of the roadway”); OCGA § 40-6-45 (a) (limitations on driving on left of center of roadway).”
Hester v. Baker, 349 S.E.2d 834 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “The trial court chose to cover the issue by charging the applicable portion of OCGA § 40-6-45 concerning a vehicle being driven on the left side of the roadway when approaching within 100 feet of an intersection.”
Jones v. State, 706 S.E.2d 593 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “5 OCGA § 40-6-45 (a) (1). 6 OCGA § 40-6-49 (a).”
Dortch v. State, 420 S.E.2d 778 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “Appellant was tried before a jury and found guilty of driving on the left side of a roadway in violation of OCGA § 40-6-45 and of driving under the influence in violation of OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (1).”
Worthy v. Kendall, 474 S.E.2d 627 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “(b) The Worthys contend that the trial court erred in giving jury charges as to OCGA § 40-6-46 (no-passing zones), OCGA § 40-6-45 (driving left of the centerline), and OCGA § 40-6-180 (basic rules of the road).”
Lewis v. Suttles Truck Leasing, Inc., 869 F. Supp. 947 (S.D. Ga. 1994). · cites it 2× “) (unpublished opinion), the trial court found that speeding and “passing within 100 feet of an intersection” (a traffic violation under O.C.G.A. § 40-6-45(a)(2)) did not constitute any behavior cognizable under O.”
Davis v. Milner, 303 S.E.2d 278 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “This assumption was perceived as favorable to the plaintiff in some respects (see Division 1 of this dissent, supra) but was unfavorable to him in that it allowed the jury to conclude that he had acted in violation of OCGA § 40-6-45 (a) (2) (Code Ann. § 68A-306), which prohibits…”
— 40-6-45(a)(2) — 1 case
Lewis v. Suttles Truck Leasing, Inc., 869 F. Supp. 947 (S.D. Ga. 1994). “) (unpublished opinion), the trial court found that speeding and “passing within 100 feet of an intersection” (a traffic violation under O.C.G.A. § 40-6-45(a)(2)) did not constitute any behavior cognizable under O.”
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.