Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 32:231 (2026)

SUBPART I. SIGNS, MARKERS AND SIGNALS

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

SUBPART I. SIGNS, MARKERS AND SIGNALS

§231. Obedience to and required traffic-control devices

A. The driver of any vehicle shall obey the instructions of any official traffic-control device applicable thereto placed in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, unless otherwise directed by a traffic or police officer, subject to the exceptions granted the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle in this Chapter.

B. No provision of this Chapter for which signs are required shall be enforced against an alleged violator if at the time and place of the alleged violation an official sign is not in a position and where it can be seen by an ordinarily observant person. Whenever a particular Section does not state that signs are required, such Section shall be effective even though no signs are erected or in place.

Acts 1962, No. 310, §1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 27 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1956–2021 · leading case: Wilson v. Transp. Consultants, Inc., 899 So. 2d 590 (La. Ct. App. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Wilson v. Transp. Consultants, Inc., 899 So. 2d 590 (La. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “R.S. 32:231, does not impose a duty to obey an obstructed traffic sign.”

Theriot v. Bergeron, 939 So. 2d 379 (La. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “However, in finding no liability on the part of defendants, the trial court relied in part on LSA-R.S. 32:231 and 32:56, which provide in part as follows: The driver of any vehicle shall obey the instructions of any official traffic-control device applicable thereto placed in…”

State v. Salinas, 251 So. 3d 1166 (La. Ct. App. 2018). “Even if the officers' subjective intent was to investigate defendant on suspicions of drug trafficking, the traffic stop was nonetheless lawful.”

Landry v. State Farm Ins. Co., 529 So. 2d 417 (La. Ct. App. 1988). “Hughes Under LSA-R.S. 32:231(A): The driver of any vehicle shall obey the instructions of any official traffic-control device applicable thereto placed in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, unless otherwise directed by a traffic or police officer, subject to the…”

Patton v. Self, 952 So. 2d 874 (La. Ct. App. 2007). “R.S.32:231). [3] Defendants also argued the trial judge erred when he visited the scene of the alleged traffic infractions.”

Pierre v. Galloway, 96 So. 2d 916 (La. Ct. App. 1957). “The District Court found that the accident occurred because the decedent, rounding a curve on a gravel road, had lost control of his vehicle and skidded into defendants' opposite-bound truck in its correct and decedent's left-hand (or wrong) lane.”

Harrington v. Velinsky, 567 So. 2d 148 (La. Ct. App. 1990). “They also argue that LSA-R.S. 32:231 provides that the driver of a vehicle shall obey the instructions of any traffic control device unless otherwise directed by a traffic or police officer.”

Hightower v. Dr. Pepper Bottling Co. of Shreveport, 117 So. 2d 642 (La. Ct. App. 1960). “With this finding the burden is cast upon appellants to explain the presence of the truck in the wrong lane of travel. Our jurisprudence recognizes the rule that where a collision occurs in one of two traffic lanes, the presumption is that the driver of the vehicle determined to…”

Michel v. Ascension Par. Police Jury, 524 So. 2d 1369 (La. Ct. App. 1988). “The holdings of the trial court and the majority opinion to the contrary are wrong. [4] For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.”

Linares v. Louisiana, Dept. of Transp., 582 So. 2d 879 (La. Ct. App. 1991). “The court cited R.S. 32:231 which permits a traffic officer to direct otherwise and found that the bridge tender was a de facto traffic officer.”

Bryant v. Johnson, 140 So. 2d 758 (La. Ct. App. 1962). “A rule of law so well established that it hardly requires citation of authority holds that where a collision between two motor vehicles occurs in one of two traffic lanes, the presumption is that the driver of the vehicle determined to have been in the wrong lane was negligent,…”

Goff v. Sarradet, 394 So. 2d 655 (La. Ct. App. 1980). “32:56(A) 1 and LSA-R.S. 32:231 2 impose a duty upon the operator of a motor vehicle to comply with any lawful order or directive of any police officer invested by law with the authority to direct, control or regulate traffic.”

Show all 27 citing cases →

— La. Rev. Stat. § 32:231(A) — 5 cases

Theriot v. Bergeron, 939 So. 2d 379 (La. Ct. App. 2006). “However, in finding no liability on the part of defendants, the trial court relied in part on LSA-R.S. 32:231 and 32:56, which provide in part as follows: The driver of any vehicle shall obey the instructions of any official traffic-control device applicable thereto placed in…”

Sutter v. Travelers Ins. Co., 167 So. 2d 517 (La. Ct. App. 1964).

Burge v. City of Hammond, 489 So. 2d 1320 (La. Ct. App. 1986).

Farris v. Jefferson (W.D. La. 2021).

— La. Rev. Stat. § 32:231(B) — 1 case

Wilson v. Transp. Consultants, Inc., 899 So. 2d 590 (La. Ct. App. 2005). “R.S. 32:231, does not impose a duty to obey an obstructed traffic sign.”

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.