O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 40-8-220 (2019)

Inspection buses

✓ 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

of

public

school

Annotations

Cross references. - Duties of state fire marshal regarding setting forth of minimum standards covering design, construction, and other aspects of transportation of liquefied petroleum gas by tank truck, tank trailer, or other method,

Vehicle Equipment Safety Compact 40-8-280 through 40-8-291. [Repealed].

§ 10-1-265. Regulation of size, weight, and other aspects of vehicles and loads on public highways, § 32-6-20 et seq. Observance of laws by motor carriers, § 40-1-122.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Cited in Archer v. Johnson, 90 Ga. App. 418, 83 S.E.2d 314 (1954); Beck v. Wade, 100 Ga. App. 79, 110 S.E.2d 43 (1959);

Hodges v. State, 100 Ga. App. 611, 112 S.E.2d 373 (1959); King v. State, 133 Ga. App. 426, 211 S.E.2d 363 (1974).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Coverage of inspection laws. - Legislature intended that both owner-drivers and nonowner-drivers of vehicles should

be covered by the motor vehicle inspection laws. 1967 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 67-433.

ARTICLE 1 EQUIPMENT GENERALLY Editor’s notes. - Ga. L. 1982, p. 165, which repealed and reenacted Parts 1 through 4 of this article, contained a legislative intent provision in § 11, not codified by the General Assembly, which stated: ‘‘The General Assembly finds that properly equipped and serviced vehicles contribute to the public welfare and safety of the citizens of Georgia through the reduction of motor vehicle accidents resulting from mechanical failure. The General Assembly also finds that it is the responsibility of all motorists to maintain

their motor vehicles in proper working condition. It is the intent of this Act to encourage all citizens to maintain their motor vehicles in safe operating condition. It is furthermore the intent of this Act to encourage the Department of Human Resources to promulgate rules and regulations specifying minimum safety standards for motor vehicles used to transport persons to and from day care centers or child care centers licensed by said department.’’

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Vehicle retains ‘‘automobile’’ status regardless of operability. - Wheeled vehicle, designed to be self-propelled and

to serve as a means of transportation, does not gain or lose status as an ‘‘automobile’’ depending upon whether at any

given time it is or is not fully capable of being operated as such. Cotton States

Mut. Ins. Co. v. Statiras, 157 Ga. App. 169, 276 S.E.2d 853 (1981).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Basis for vehicular distinctions. - Legislature based its vehicular distinctions not solely upon the load carried but upon the manner in which the defined load is carried by the vehicle under consideration. 1968 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 68-308. Vehicle with flexible, welded joint. - Type of unit which is secured by a flexible, welded joint is a single unified motor vehicle and not two separate vehicles. As such, it is subject to the braking inspection requirements imposed by law on motor vehicles. 1968 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 68-308. Pole trailers. - Legislature intended

to classify as pole trailers only those vehicles in which the load thereupon carried was utilized to carry the trailer’s own weight between the supporting connections. 1968 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 68-308. Golf cart is motor vehicle. - Golf cart was a vehicle other than a tractor, not operated upon a track, and propelled by other than muscular power and thus fell within the definition of ‘‘motor vehicle.’’ If it was to be operated upon a public road, the operator must comply with registration and inspection requirements and all equipment requirements of former Code 1933, Ch. 68-17. 1972 Op. Att’y Gen. No. U72-78.

PART 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1994–1994 · leading case: Kirby v. Spate, 448 S.E.2d 7 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994).
Kirby v. Spate, 448 S.E.2d 7 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “, OCGA § 40-8-220) — a genuine issue of material fact yet may remain whether the owner has exercised ordinary diligence if he fails to establish an effective maintenance program to replace periodically all deteriorative brake parts which, if allowed to deteriorate or otherwise…”
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.