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

O.C.G.A. § 40-8-31 (2019)

Use of multiple-beam road lighting equipment

✓ 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

Whenever a motor vehicle is being operated on a roadway or shoulder adjacent thereto during the times specified in Code Section 40-8-20, the driver shall use a distribution of light, or composite beam, directed high enough and of sufficient intensity to reveal persons and vehicles at a safe distance in advance of the vehicle, subject to the following requirements and limitations: (1) Whenever a driver of a vehicle approaches an oncoming vehicle within 500 feet, such driver shall use a distribution of light, or composite beam, so aimed that the glaring rays are not projected into the eyes of the oncoming driver. The lowermost distribution of light, or composite beam, specified in paragraph (2) of Code Section 40-8-30 shall be deemed to avoid glare at all times, regardless of road contour and loading; and (2) Whenever the driver of a vehicle follows another vehicle within 200 feet to the rear, except when engaged in the act of overtaking and passing, such driver shall use a distribution of light permissible under this chapter other than the uppermost distribution of light specified in paragraph (1) of Code Section 40-8-30.

History

(Ga. L. 1953, Nov.-Dec. Sess., p. 556, § 114; Ga. L. 1955, Ex. Sess., p. 25, § 1; Code 1933, § 68E-212, enacted by Ga. L. 1982, p. 165, § 4; Code 1981, § 40-8-31, enacted by Ga. L. 1982, p. 165, § 10; Ga. L. 1989, p. 14, § 40.)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS 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).

RESEARCH REFERENCES 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 auto-

mobile 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.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1986–2010 · leading case: Long v. State, 610 S.E.2d 74 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Long v. State, 610 S.E.2d 74 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “2 OCGA§ 40-8-31. 3 Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.”
McConnell v. State, 373 S.E.2d 111 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 3× “William Ross McConnell was tried for failure to dim headlights (OCGA § 40-8-31) and driving under the influence.”
Conley v. State, 352 S.E.2d 394 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 6× “A jury found appellant guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol (OCGA § 40-6-391) and acquitted him of failure to dim head *376 lights (OCGA § 40-8-31). Appellant seeks reversal of his judgment of conviction, claiming that the trial court erred in denying his motion to…”
State v. Mussell, 571 S.E.2d 518 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 12× “Mussell filed a motion to suppress the results of her subsequent breath alcohol test, contending the officer lacked , the reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity necessary for a valid traffic stop. She claimed that she had no duty to dim her lights because the…”
Jacobson v. State, 703 S.E.2d 376 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “After the driver, who was later identified as Jacobson, failed to dim the bright lights before passing the officer’s car, the officer conducted a traffic stop based upon Jacobson’s violation of OCGA § 40-8-31 (1). Upon contact with Jacobson, the officer noticed a “strong odor of…”
Pitts v. State, 498 S.E.2d 534 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 4× “Roger Dale Pitts was arrested and charged with driving under the influence (OCGA § 40-6-391), failure to dim headlights (OCGA § 40-8-31), violation of the open container statute (OCGA § 40-6-253), and speeding (OCGA § 40-6-181).”
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.