Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 49-710 (2026)

Bridge and railroad signals. 

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Bridge and railroad signals. 

(1) No pedestrian shall enter or remain upon any bridge or approach thereto beyond the bridge signal, gate, or barrier after a bridge operation signal indication has been given.

(2)  No pedestrian shall pass through, around, over, or under any crossing gate or barrier at a railroad grade crossing or bridge while the gate or barrier is closed or is being opened or closed.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1959–1969 · leading case: Howard v. Missman, 337 P.2d 592 (Idaho 1959).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Howard v. Missman, 337 P.2d 592 (Idaho 1959). · cites it 3× “Moreover, in this case the court instructed the jury as to the requirements of I.C. §§ 49-710, 49-724, 49-725 and 49-726, regarding precautions and signals which were required of the driver of the pickup truck before making the left turn immediately prior to the collision, and…”
Woodman v. Knight, 380 P.2d 222 (Idaho 1963). · cites it 4× “2) and in failing to sound his horn (I.C. §§ 49-710 (b) and 49-834(a)) was concurrent with the negligence of Knight, above mentioned.”
Vincen v. Lazarus, 456 P.2d 789 (Idaho 1969). · cites it 2× “§ 49-834(a) lays down no blanket mandatory requirement of sounding an audible warning when passing; nor do we read such a requirement into I.C. § 49-710(b). The Woodman case [15] is not persuasive here for the reason that there the court apparently presumed an audible warning…”
Kelley v. Bruch, 415 P.2d 693 (Idaho 1966). · cites it 2× “I.C. §§ 49-710, 49-740, 49-743, 49-834; Maier v.”
Idaho Code § 49-710(b): 2 cases
Woodman v. Knight, 380 P.2d 222 (Idaho 1963). “2) and in failing to sound his horn (I.C. §§ 49-710 (b) and 49-834(a)) was concurrent with the negligence of Knight, above mentioned.”
Vincen v. Lazarus, 456 P.2d 789 (Idaho 1969). “§ 49-834(a) lays down no blanket mandatory requirement of sounding an audible warning when passing; nor do we read such a requirement into I.C. § 49-710(b). The Woodman case [15] is not persuasive here for the reason that there the court apparently presumed an audible warning…”
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.