O.C.G.A.
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.
(a) No person shall drive any motor vehicle with any sign, poster, or other nontransparent material upon the front windshield, side windows, or rear windows of such vehicle which obstructs the driver’s clear view of the highway or any intersecting highway. (b) The windshield of every motor vehicle shall be equipped with a device for cleaning rain, snow, or other moisture therefrom, which device shall be so constructed as to be controlled or operated by the driver of the vehicle.
(c) Every windshield wiper upon a motor vehicle shall be maintained in good working order. (d) No opaque or solid material including, but not limited to, cardboard, plastic, and taped glass shall be employed in lieu of a glass windshield or window. (e) No motor vehicle shall be operated with a windshield or rear window having a starburst or spider webbing effect greater than three inches by three inches.
History
(Ga. L. 1953, Nov.-Dec. Sess., p. 556, § 119; Code 1933, § 68E-404, enacted by Ga. L. 1982, p. 165, § 4; Code 1981, § 40-8-73, enacted by Ga. L. 1982, p. 165, § 10.)
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Violation justified traffic stop. - Traffic stop was justified when officers noticed that a defendant’s car had a ten-inch ‘‘starburst’’ crack in the car’s windshield; under O.C.G.A. § 40-8-73(e), a vehicle was not to be operated with a windshield or rear window having a starburst or spider webbing effect greater
than three inches by three inches. Glenn v. State, 285 Ga. App. 872, 648 S.E.2d 177 (2007). Cited in Vickers v. State, 234 Ga. App. 563, 507 S.E.2d 810 (1998); Darby v. State, 239 Ga. App. 492, 521 S.E.2d 438 (1999); State v. Terrell, 327 Ga. App. 745, 761 S.E.2d 142 (2014).
RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 7A Am. Jur. 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, §§ 203, 317, 318. 8 Am. Jur. 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, §§ 584, 768, 769, 871. C.J.S. - 60 C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, §§ 18, 43 et seq. 60A C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, §§ 623, 665, 676. 61 C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, § 951. 61A C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, § 1380.
ALR. - Impairment of driver’s view through windshield as affecting liability for automobile accident, 10 A.L.R. 299. Motor vehicle operator’s liability for accident occurring while driving with vision obscured by smoke or steam, 32 A.L.R.4th 933.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases, 1997–2014 · leading case:
Darby v. State, 521 S.E.2d 438 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).
Darby v. State, 521 S.E.2d 438 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 10× “Appellant argues that because OCGA § 40-8-73 (e) provides that “[n]o motor vehicle shall be operated with a windshield or rear window having a starburst or spider webbing effect greater than three inches by three inches,” that he was not in violation of the statute and that the…”
Holt v. State, 487 S.E.2d 629 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 4× “See OCGA § 40-8-73 (e) (it is unlawful to operate a vehicle with a windshield that has “a starburst or spider webbing effect greater than three inches by three inches”).”
Glenn v. State, 648 S.E.2d 177 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “See OCGA § 40-8-73 (e) (“[n]o motor vehicle shall be operated with a windshield or rear window having a starburst or spider webbing effect greater than three inches by three inches”); Darby v.”
Gutierrez v. State, 510 S.E.2d 570 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “1 (b)); and driving with improper equipment (OCGA § 40-8-73 (e)). The court merged the felony obstruction with the aggravated assault.”
Hilton v. State, 901 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).
“Ga.Code Ann. § 40-8-73(e) (2004). Some other states employ more general language to regulate windshield cracks that interfere with the driver's view.”
Vickers v. State, 507 S.E.2d 810 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “At that point [Officer Hoagland] brought [defendant] back to [the] patrol car and placed [defendant] under arrest for driving on a suspended license.” Officer Hoagland then “did an impound inspection on the vehicle.”
State v. Terrell, 761 S.E.2d 142 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “See OCGA § 40-8-73 (e) (“No motor vehicle shall be operated with a windshield or rear window having a starburst or spider webbing effect greater than three inches by three inches”).”
State v. Michael Cody Terrell (Ga. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “4 The vehicle was driven by Kelsey Lambert, and Terrell was in the passenger seat. As a backup officer arrived, the first officer requested Lambert’s driver’s license and took it back to his patrol car to run a check on it approximately one minute later.”
— 40-8-73(e) — 2 cases
Holt v. State, 487 S.E.2d 629 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997).
“See OCGA § 40-8-73 (e) (it is unlawful to operate a vehicle with a windshield that has “a starburst or spider webbing effect greater than three inches by three inches”).”
Hilton v. State, 901 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).
“Ga.Code Ann. § 40-8-73(e) (2004). Some other states employ more general language to regulate windshield cracks that interfere with the driver's view.”
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.