(1) No owner shall knowingly operate or permit to be operated on a highway a motor
vehicle upon which the brakes are defective.
(2) Every motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle, when operated upon a highway shall
be equipped with brakes adequate to control the movement of and to stop and hold
the vehicle. There shall be two (2) separate means of applying the brakes, each of
which means shall be effective to apply the brakes to at least two (2) wheels. If the
two (2) separate means are connected in any way, they shall be so constructed that
failure of any one (1) part of the operating mechanism shall not leave the motor
vehicle without brakes on at least two (2) wheels.
(3) (a) Except for commercial motor vehicles with a declared gross vehicle weight of
more the ten thousand (10,000) pounds, the service brakes upon any motor
vehicle or combination of vehicles shall be adequate to stop the vehicle when
traveling twenty (20) miles per hour within a distance of forty (40) feet when
upon dry asphalt or concrete pavement surface free from loose material where
the grade does not exceed one percent (1%).
(b) Under the conditions described in subsection (3)(a), the hand brake shall be
adequate to stop the vehicle within a distance of fifty-five (55) feet and the
hand brake shall be adequate to hold the vehicle stationary on any grade upon
which it is operated.
(c) Under the conditions described in subsection (3)(a), the service brakes upon a
motor vehicle equipped with two (2)-wheel brakes only shall be adequate to
stop the vehicle within a distance of forty (40) feet and the hand brake
adequate to stop the vehicle within a distance of fifty-five (55) feet.
(d) All braking distances specified in this section shall apply whether or not the
vehicles are loaded to the maximum capacity permitted by law.
(e) All brakes shall be maintained in good working order and shall be so adjusted
as to operate with equal effect with respect to the wheels on opposite sides of
the vehicle.
(4) A person shall not operate any commercial motor vehicle with a declared gross
weight of over ten thousand (10,000) pounds on any highway in this state unless it
is equipped with efficient brakes that meet the federal motor carrier safety standards
in 49 C.F.R. pt. 393 and may be operated by the operator of the vehicle.
Effective: July 12, 2006
History: Amended 2006 Ky. Acts ch. 173, sec. 8, effective July 12, 2006. -- Amended
1976 Ky. Acts ch. 173, sec. 2. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective
October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. secs. 2739g-26, 2739g-88.
Notes of Decisions
Sand Hill Energy, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 83 S.W.3d 483 (Ky. 2002).
· cites it 2× “From the day this action was filed until today, both the Smith estate and Sand Hill have continued to assert that there was no contributory fault on the part of Sand Hill for failing to repair the inoperable handbrake, but see KRS 189.090(3)(e); and that there was no…”
Apex Mining v. Blankenship, 918 S.W.2d 225 (Ky. 1996).
“2d 142 (1968); KRS 189.090. It is apparent that the goal of the penalty provision contained in KRS 342.”
Jewell v. Dell, 284 S.W.2d 92 (Ky. Ct. App. 1955).
“KRS 189.090 positively declares that no owner of a motor vehicle shall knowingly operate or permit it to be operated with defective brakes on a highway.”
Swope v. Fallen, 413 S.W.2d 82 (Ky. Ct. App. 1967).
“The applicable statute, KRS 189.090(3) (e), says: “All brakes shall be maintained in good working order * * In Veal v.”
Veal v. Davis, 343 S.W.2d 593 (Ky. Ct. App. 1960).
· cites it 3× “Appellant complains that the trial court erred in refusing to give an instruction which he insists is authorized under KRS 189.090. It might be best to discuss the instructions actually given by the court.”
Hensley v. Golden, 196 S.W.2d 739 (Ky. Ct. App. 1946).
· cites it 2× “On the other hand, appellee contends that the judgment is proper because Hensley permitted the truck to be operated on the highway knowing that the brakes were defective, in violation of KRS 189.090. Stated briefly, his argument is that the proximate cause of the accident and…”
Beatty v. Root, 415 S.W.2d 384 (Ky. Ct. App. 1967).
“The statute, KRS 189.090, and any standard of reasonable care requires the maintenance of adequate brakes.”
Beardsley v. Broach, 310 S.W.2d 539 (Ky. Ct. App. 1958).
· cites it 2× “Appellee bases his cause of action on subsection (1) of KRS 189.090 which is: “No owner shall knowingly operate or permit to be operated on a highway a motor vehicle upon which the brakes are defective,” and on a general theory of law recognized in an annotation in 46 A.”
Keller v. Morehead, 247 S.W.2d 218 (Ky. Ct. App. 1952).
“Appellants also point out that appellee’s trailer was not equipped with -brakes as required by KRS 189.090(4), but it is apparent that the absence of brakes on the trailer had no causal connection with the accident.”
Dr. Pepper Bottling Co. v. Ricks, 376 S.W.2d 299 (Ky. Ct. App. 1964).
“The propriety of giving an instruction based on KRS 189.090 governing brakes is questioned by appellants.”
Wagoner v. Roberson, 450 S.W.2d 270 (Ky. Ct. App. 1970).
“Apparently her brakes had slowed her automobile appreciably before entering the intersection and, under the circumstances shown, there was no alternative course of action she fairly could be required to take nor is there anything but speculation that the accident could have been…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 189.090(1) — 1 case
Hensley v. Golden, 196 S.W.2d 739 (Ky. Ct. App. 1946).
“On the other hand, appellee contends that the judgment is proper because Hensley permitted the truck to be operated on the highway knowing that the brakes were defective, in violation of KRS 189.090. Stated briefly, his argument is that the proximate cause of the accident and…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 189.090(3) — 1 case
Swope v. Fallen, 413 S.W.2d 82 (Ky. Ct. App. 1967).
“The applicable statute, KRS 189.090(3) (e), says: “All brakes shall be maintained in good working order * * In Veal v.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 189.090(3)(e) — 2 cases
Sand Hill Energy, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 83 S.W.3d 483 (Ky. 2002).
“From the day this action was filed until today, both the Smith estate and Sand Hill have continued to assert that there was no contributory fault on the part of Sand Hill for failing to repair the inoperable handbrake, but see KRS 189.090(3)(e); and that there was no…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 189.090(4) — 1 case
Keller v. Morehead, 247 S.W.2d 218 (Ky. Ct. App. 1952).
“Appellants also point out that appellee’s trailer was not equipped with -brakes as required by KRS 189.090(4), but it is apparent that the absence of brakes on the trailer had no causal connection with the accident.”
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.