O.C.G.A. § 40-6-96 (2019)
Pedestrians on or along roadway
(a) As used in this Code section, the term ‘‘pedestrian’’ means any person afoot and shall include, without limitation, persons standing, walking, jogging, running, or otherwise on foot. (b) Where a sidewalk is provided, it shall be unlawful for any pedestrian to stand or stride along and upon an adjacent roadway unless there is no motor vehicle traveling within 1,000 feet of such pedestrian on such roadway or the available sidewalk presents an imminent threat of bodily injury to such pedestrian. (c) Where a sidewalk is not provided but a shoulder is available, any pedestrian standing or striding along and upon a highway shall stand or stride only on the shoulder, as far as practicable from the edge of the roadway. (d) Where neither a sidewalk nor a shoulder is available, any pedestrian standing or striding along and upon a highway shall stand or stride as near as practicable to an outside edge of the roadway, and, if on a two-lane roadway, shall stand or stride only on the left side of the roadway. (e) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any pedestrian upon a roadway shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway. (f ) No pedestrian shall enter or remain upon any bridge or approach thereto beyond the bridge signal, gate, or barrier after a bridge operation signal indication has been given. (g) No pedestrian shall pass through, around, over, or under any crossing gate or barrier at a railroad grade crossing or bridge while such gate or barrier is closed or is being opened or closed.
History
(Ga. L. 1953, Nov.-Dec. Sess., p. 556, § 82; Code 1933, § 68A-506, enacted by Ga. L. 1974, p. 633, § 1; Code 1981, § 40-6-97; Code 1981, § 40-6-96, as
redesignated by Ga. L. 1990, p. 2048, § 5; Ga. L. 2009, p. 65, § 5/SB 196.)
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Duty to create walkway. - No duty exists at law to design a roadway with a sidewalk or transversable shoulder; however, a duty to create a walkway may be created by ordinance or by an accepted industry standard for a particular type of development. Samuelson v. Lord, Aeck & Sergeant, Inc., 205 Ga. App. 568, 423 S.E.2d 268, cert. denied, 205 Ga. App. 901, 423 S.E.2d 268 (1992). Questions for jury. - When the decedent was run over by a bus after the driver let the decedent off on the roadway approximately four feet from the curb and about 25 feet from the bus stop, the issues of the decedent’s negligence and the duty of care owed to the decedent were questions for the jury. Cuthbert v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth., 190 Ga. App. 550, 379 S.E.2d 413, cert. denied, 190 Ga. App. 897, 379 S.E.2d 413 (1989). Partial summary judgment was inappropriate in a pedestrian’s personal injury lawsuit after the driver’s car crossed the white line before striking the pedestrian because even the driver’s expert testified that the part of the road between the white line and the curb was part of the shoulder of the road. Field v. Lowery, 300 Ga. App. 812, 686 S.E.2d 422 (2009). What constitutes ‘‘sidewalk.’’ - When there is an excavation extending from a property line across a walkway, leaving only an 18-inch ledge, this ledge cannot be held as a matter of law to be a ‘‘sidewalk’’ within the contemplation of Ga. L. 1953, Nov.-Dec. Sess., p. 556.
Roseberry v. Freeman, 97 Ga. App. 545, 103 S.E.2d 745 (1958). Subsection (d) applies only to two-lane roads. - Partial summary judgment was inappropriate in a pedestrian’s personal injury lawsuit since the driver’s car crossed the white line before striking the pedestrian because O.C.G.A. § 40-6-96(d) was inapplicable to require the pedestrian to walk on the left since by the statute’s clear language, this provision applied to two-lane roads, and the accident occurred on a part of a highway where it was four-lanes wide. Field v. Lowery, 300 Ga. App. 812, 686 S.E.2d 422 (2009). Not applicable in tort action. - Defendants failed to show, as a matter of law, that the alcohol and cocaine in the deceased’s system rendered him a ‘‘hazard’’ in violation of O.C.G.A. § 40-6-95. Moreover, there was no evidence to suggest that the deceased wandered onto the highway in violation of O.C.G.A. § 40-6-96. Swinney v. Schneider Nat’l Carriers, Inc., 829 F. Supp. 2d 1358 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 7, 2011). Sufficiency of evidence to convict. - Evidence that defendant was walking in the middle of the roadway, causing cars to stop to avoid hitting the defendant, supported the defendant’s conviction under O.C.G.A. § 40-6-96(c). McCormack v. State, 325 Ga. App. 183, 751 S.E.2d 904 (2013). Cited in Tiller v. State, 286 Ga. App. 230, 648 S.E.2d 738 (2007).
RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 7A Am. Jur. 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, §§ 323, 324. ALR. - Liability for injury to pedestrian struck by automobile while walking along street or highway, 67 A.L.R. 96; 93 A.L.R. 551.
Liability of owner or operator of motor vehicle for injury to person who has alighted from or is waiting for streetcar or bus, 123 A.L.R. 791.