Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Code 1933, § 68-302 are included in the annotations for this Code section.

Duty to dim headlights.

- It is the duty of one operating a motor vehicle along a public highway in this state to have the vehicle equipped with a suitable device for dimming or changing the focus of the headlights thereon so as to prevent dangerously glaring or dazzling rays from the lamps thereof to affect the eyesight of the driver of an approaching vehicle, and to dim the lights, or change the focus when necessary. Fender v. Drost, 62 Ga. App. 345, 7 S.E.2d 800 (1940) (decided under former Code 1933, § 68-302).

As the trial court erred by holding that the defendant did not have a duty to dim the defendant's vehicle lights because the police officer stopped at the stop light was not an oncoming vehicle, the defendant's motion to suppress the results of a breath test for a driving under the influence charge was improperly granted. State v. Mussell, 257 Ga. App. 533, 571 S.E.2d 518 (2002).

What constitutes negligence per se.

- While the failure to have one's motor vehicle equipped with a suitable device for dimming or changing the focus of the headlights of the vehicle is negligence per se, the failure to dim the lights or change their focus is not negligence per se, as the requirement to dim is by inference and not by mandate. Williams v. Chastain, 91 Ga. App. 167, 85 S.E.2d 92 (1954) (decided under former Code 1933, § 68-302).

Negligence is question for jury.

- Whether or not one's failure to dim the lights of one's motor vehicle while on one of the public highways of this state as one meets an approaching automobile is ordinary negligence or not is a question for determination by the jury under all the attendant circumstances of each case. Williams v. Chastain, 91 Ga. App. 167, 85 S.E.2d 92 (1954) (decided under former Code 1933, § 68-302).

Sentence not excessive.

- Sentence of 12 months probation and a $75 fine for speeding, and a concurrent 12 months probation for failure to dim headlights, was within statutory limits, and was particularly merited in case of a defendant who had two prior DUI arrests and who, while acquitted of DUI in the instant case, had a blood alcohol level of .096 to .099 at the time of the defendant's arrest. Pitts v. State, 231 Ga. App. 9, 498 S.E.2d 534 (1998).

Cited in Central of Ga. Ry. v. Hurst, 115 Ga. App. 271, 154 S.E.2d 641 (1967); McConnell v. State, 188 Ga. App. 653, 374 S.E.2d 111 (1988).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 7A Am. Jur. 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, § 205 et seq.

C.J.S.

- 60 C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, § 343 et seq. 60A C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, § 630 et seq.

ALR.

- Liability or recovery in automobile negligence action as affected by motor vehicles being driven or parked without dimming lights, 63 A.L.R.3d 824.

Liability or recovery in automobile negligence action as affected by driver's being blinded by lights of motor vehicle, 64 A.L.R.3d 551.