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

O.C.G.A. § 40-6-71 (2019)

Yield when turning left

✓ O.C.G.A. (archive.org 2024 item): print volumes of 2004-2024, per-volume vintage; older volumes partly replaced by 2019 Release 73 text; no 2025 or 2026 Acts
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

The driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left within an intersection or into an alley, private road, or driveway shall yield the right of way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction which is within the intersection or so close thereto as to constitute an immediate hazard.

History

(Ga. L. 1953, Nov.-Dec. Sess., p. 556, § 73; Code 1933, § 68A-402, enacted by Ga. L. 1974, p. 633, § 1; Ga. L. 1990, p. 2048, § 5.)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Jury instructions upheld. - Instruction on O.C.G.A. § 40-6-21(a)(1)(A) (meaning of traffic signals), rather than O.C.G.A. § 40-6-71 (turning left), held proper. Corley v. Harris, 171 Ga. App. 688, 320 S.E.2d 833 (1984); Bailey v. Bartee, 205 Ga. App. 463, 422 S.E.2d 319 (1992).

Opposing driver's testimony allowed the jury to consider whether the driver satisfied the driver's duty in looking and not seeing any oncoming vehicles such that the driver knew or should have known whether the suing driver's vehicle was so close so as to pose an immediate hazard. Dubberly v. Cooper, 258 Ga. App. 193, 573 S.E.2d 442 (2002).

Requirements of accusation and ability to withstand demurrer. - Trial court erred in sustaining the defendant's demurrer regarding the charges of failing to yield the right of way while turning left and failing to obey a traffic-control device as an accusation that charges an accused with having committed certain acts in violation of a specified penal statute withstood a demurrer, and the indictment cited both O.C.G.A. §§ 40-6-20 and 40-6-71. Further, although the accusation failed to put the defendant on notice of what instruction of a traffic-control device the state alleged the defendant failed to obey, the defendant could not admit that the defendant failed to yield the right of way to a vehicle when the defendant was intending to turn left within the specified intersection, which was regulated by traffic lights, without admitting to the offense of failure to obey a traffic-control device. State v. Shabazz, 291 Ga. App. 751, 662 S.E.2d 828 (2008).

Evidence sufficient for conviction. - See Cook v. State, 238 Ga. App. 341, 518 S.E.2d 749 (1999).

Evidence that the defendant turned left at an intersection in front of a car approaching from the opposite direction, causing a collision, was sufficient to support the defendant's conviction for failure to yield the right of way. Oduok v. State, 347 Ga. App. 178, 817 S.E.2d 145 (2018).

Payment of fine did not dispose of negligence action. - In a negligence action for damages sustained by a bicyclist allegedly caused by an oncoming driver, because the driver's payment of a fine on a failure to yield citation did not constitute an explicit admission of guilt or amount to a finding of negligence per se, and because fact issues remained as to whether the bicyclist was contributorily negligent, partial summary judgment in the bicyclist's favor was reversed. Hite v. Anderson, 284 Ga. App. 156, 643 S.E.2d 550 (2007).

Inconsistent verdicts. - After the trial court accepted a guilty plea from the oncoming driver for running a red light and a guilty verdict was entered against the defendant for failing to yield the right of way, the fact that the two verdicts were inconsistent did not preclude the guilty verdict against the defendant. Nolan v. State, 257 Ga. App. 767, 572 S.E.2d 100 (2002).

Cited in Thompson v. Hill, 143 Ga. App. 272, 238 S.E.2d 271 (1977); Johnson v. State, 170 Ga. App. 433, 317 S.E.2d 213 (1984); Branch v. State, 175 Ga. App. 696, 334 S.E.2d 24 (1985).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d. - 7A Am. Jur. 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, § 287.

C.J.S. - 60A C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, §§ 699 et seq., 864.

ALR. - Right of way at street or highway intersections, 47 A.L.R. 595.

Reciprocal duties of drivers of automobiles or other vehicles proceeding in the same direction, 47 A.L.R. 703; 62 A.L.R. 970; 104 A.L.R. 485.

Automobiles: cutting corners as negligence, 115 A.L.R. 1178.

Liability for accident arising from failure of motorist to give signal for left turn at intersection, as against oncoming or intersecting motor vehicle, 39 A.L.R.2d 65.

Liability for accident arising from failure of motorist to give signal for left turn between intersections, 39 A.L.R.2d 103.

Duty and liability of vehicle drivers approaching intersection of one-way street with other street, 62 A.L.R.2d 275.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: Forbes v. Smith, 790 S.E.2d 550 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Forbes v. Smith, 790 S.E.2d 550 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 6× “Forbes points to evidence showing application of the tolling provisions of OCGA § 9-3-99: (1) that at the scene of the July 5, 2013 automobile accident, a police officer issued Smith a uniform traffic citation (“UTC”) for the alleged offense of failure to yield while turning…”
Hite v. Anderson, 643 S.E.2d 550 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 6× “The responding officer cited Hite for failure to yield the right of way when turning left, OCGA § 40-6-71. Hite “paid the fine” without appearing in court.”
Bailey v. Bartee, 422 S.E.2d 319 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 27× “Appellant asserts the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury regarding the provisions of OCGA § 40-6-71, pertaining to vehicles turning left at intersections.”
State v. Shabazz, 662 S.E.2d 828 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 40-6-71 provides that [t]he driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left within an intersection or into an alley, private road, or driveway shall yield the right of way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction which is within the intersection or so…”
State v. Nix, 469 S.E.2d 497 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 4× “Count 2 charged *652 Nix with vehicular homicide due to failure to yield the right of way as required by OCGA §§ 40-6-71 and 40-6-1. Count 3 charged failure to yield the right of way in violation of OCGA §§ 40-6-21 (a) (1) (A) and 40-6-1.”
Corley v. Harris, 320 S.E.2d 833 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 4× “The appellant next asserts that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on OCGA § 40-6-21 (a) (1) (A), rather than OCGA § 40-6-71. The former code section, however, specifically concerns vehicular traffic at intersections regulated by a traffic light, and the trial court…”
Diana Arias v. Joseph T. Cameron, 776 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2015). “” When the incident occurred, Cameron produced a California driver’s license to the Cobb County Police Department, which cited Cameron for failure to yield under Georgia statute O.C.G.A. § 40-6-71 and issued Cameron a ticket.”
Garrett v. State, 702 S.E.2d 470 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “He pled guilty to these state violations in the Municipal Court of Hiram, Georgia on September 26, 2008, and he was sentenced to twenty-four months on probation, two days to serve in the Paulding County jail, and $1,046 in fines, surcharges and other costs.”
Johnson v. State, 317 S.E.2d 213 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “The only requested instruction not given was one to charge OCGA § 40-6-71 on the duty to yield to oncoming traffic when intending to make a left turn.”
Dubberly v. Cooper, 573 S.E.2d 442 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 6× “Dubberly sued Cooper for negligence, and at trial the court instructed the jury that a driver’s duty to yield the right of way is established under OCGA § 40-6-71, “which provides in pertinent *194 part: The driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left within an…”
Pep Boys — Manny, Moe & Jack, Inc. v. Yahyapour, 632 S.E.2d 385 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “The officer cited Soto for violating OCGA § 40-6-71 by “failure to yield — turning left,” and the citation reflected that Soto was driving a 1998 Ford Ranger on Buford Highway and that there had been an accident.”
Roberts v. Ledbetter, 463 S.E.2d 533 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 4× “See OCGA § 40-6-71. They also cited Ledbetter for failing to properly secure his truck's load.”
Show all 32 citing cases →
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.