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 and40-6-71. 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, Ga. App. , 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).

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.