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

O.C.G.A. § 40-8-72 (2019)

Mirrors

✓ 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

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this Code section, every motor vehicle which is so constructed or loaded as to obstruct the driver’s view to the rear thereof from the driver’s position shall be equipped with a mirror so located as to reflect to the driver a view of the highway for a distance of at least 200 feet to the rear of such vehicle. (b) Every commercial motor vehicle shall be equipped with two rear-vision mirrors meeting the requirements of the federal motor vehicle safety standards contained in 49 C.F.R. 571.111 in effect at the time of manufacture, one at each side, firmly attached to the outside of the motor vehicle, and so located as to reflect to the driver a view of the highway to the rear, along both sides of the vehicle; provided, however, that only one outside mirror shall be required, which shall be on the driver’s side, on a commercial motor vehicle which is so constructed that the driver has a view to the rear by means of an interior mirror.

History

(Ga. L. 1953, Nov.-Dec. Sess., p. 556, § 118; Code 1933, § 68E-403, enacted by Ga. L. 1982, p. 165, § 4; Code 1981, § 40-8-72, enacted by Ga. L. 1982, p. 165, § 10; Ga. L. 2011, p. 479, § 15/HB 112.)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Original equipment not required. - Defendant’s truck’s lack of an interior rearview mirror did not constitute a violation of O.C.G.A. § 40-8-7 or O.C.G.A. § 40-8-72, neither of which required the vehicle to contain all original equipment from the time of manufacture and, as a result, could not have given the officer the

requisite reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify a stop. Abercrombie v. State, 343 Ga. App. 774, 808 S.E.2d 245 (2017). Cited in Coopers’, Inc. v. Holmes, 126 Ga. App. 597, 191 S.E.2d 562 (1972); State v. Reid, 313 Ga. App. 633, 722 S.E.2d 364 (2012).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 8 Am. Jur. 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, § 736. C.J.S. - 60A C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, §§ 621, 667, 699, 701.

ALR. - Liability for failure to provide motor vehicle with adequate rearview mirror, 27 A.L.R.2d 1040.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2012–2017 · leading case: Abercrombie v. The State., 808 S.E.2d 245 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Abercrombie v. The State., 808 S.E.2d 245 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 26× “The State argued at the suppression hearing that the stop was permissible because driving a vehicle that lacks an interior rearview mirror constitutes an equipment violation under OCGA § 40-8-7 and OCGA § 40-8-72. And indeed, the officer who stopped Abercrombie's vehicle…”
State v. Reid, 722 S.E.2d 364 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “According to OCGA § 40-8-72 (a), “every motor vehicle which is so constructed or loaded as to obstruct the driver’s view to the rear thereof from the driver’s position shall be equipped with a mirror so located as to reflect to the driver a view of the highway for a distance of…”
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.