Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 32:235 (2026)

Uniform highway marking system

✓ current as of May 2026

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

§235. Uniform highway marking system

A.(1) The department shall adopt a manual and specifications for a uniform system of traffic control devices consistent with the provisions of this Chapter for use upon highways within this state. Such uniform system shall correlate with and so far as possible conform to the system then current as approved by the United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), except that the department shall develop a supplement to the manual with all symbol-based or bilingual signs that display terms in both English and Louisiana French, subject to approval by the United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, which permits parish governing authorities to adopt such supplement, request that signs along state and federal highways within their boundaries be bilingual, and display terms in both English and Louisiana French. In developing the supplement, the department shall adhere to the following:

(2) The department shall coordinate with the Council for the Development of French in Louisiana pursuant to R.S. 25:651 et seq., prior to application for approval from the United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.

(3) The supplement shall provide a process by which a parish governing authority may formally adopt the supplement. In the event the United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration does not approve the bilingual supplement, it shall be returned to the governing authority of the parish which requested approval of a bilingual supplement. The parish governing authority may only proceed with local adoption of the supplement as it was submitted to the United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration but shall not erect any bilingual sign on any state or federal highway within the parish; signs installed on parish roads shall be at the expense of the parish.

(4) The department may deviate from the system and erect advisory signs only to post advisory weight limits on state bridges where a state bridge is scheduled for replacement or strengthening within three years from the date of approval by the chief engineer of the department's weight rating evaluation of any state bridge. In addition, the department may deviate from the criteria contained in said system for location of traffic signals to the extent that additional weighted consideration shall be given to pedestrian and vehicular traffic volumes associated with schools which are located on state highways.

(5) The department shall require that any signage on public highways which indicates maximum or minimum speed limits in kilometers also indicate such speed limits in miles per hour.

B. Local municipal and parish authorities in their respective jurisdictions shall place and maintain such traffic control devices upon highways under their jurisdiction as they may deem necessary to indicate and to carry out the provisions of this Chapter, regulations of the department and commissioner adopted pursuant hereto, and local traffic ordinances adopted pursuant to the authority granted by R.S. 32:41 and R.S. 32:42. All such traffic control devices hereafter erected shall conform to the department's manual or specifications. If any such device hereafter erected by a political subdivision of this state fails to conform to the manual or specifications, payment of any funds allocated to that political subdivision shall be withheld by the department until the standards established by the department are complied with.

C. No local municipal or parish authority shall place or maintain any traffic control device upon any state maintained highway without having first obtained the written approval of the department.

D. Wherever any highway crosses the boundaries of and enters into the state of Louisiana, the department may erect appropriate signs giving notice of the maximum speed limits authorized by law for each type of vehicle upon the highways of this state.

E. Proof that any state, parochial or municipal authority was at the time of any incident complained of in compliance with the provisions of the department's traffic control devices manual shall be prima facie evidence of discharge by such authority of its obligations to the motoring public.

Acts 1962, No. 310, §1. Amended by Acts 1968, No. 182, §1; Acts 1968, No. 273, §3; Acts 1977, No. 113, §1, eff. June 22, 1977; Acts 1977, No. 211, §1, eff. July 7, 1977; Acts 1978, No. 35, §1, eff. May 31, 1978; Acts 1995, No. 282, §1; Acts 1995, No. 1125, §1; Acts 2014, No. 263, §2, eff. August 1, 2014.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 185 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1951–2022 · leading case: Reichert v. State, Dept. of Transp. & Dev., 694 So. 2d 193 (La. 1997).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Reichert v. State, Dept. of Transp. & Dev., 694 So. 2d 193 (La. 1997). · cites it 4× “-R.S. 32:235 E [2] by having two signs prior to the intersection in question, namely, a crossroad caution sign and a junction sign.”

Archon v. Union Pac. RR, 657 So. 2d 987 (La. 1995). · cites it 5× “1987); La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 32:235(B) (West 1989).”

Gaspard v. LeMaire, 158 So. 2d 149 (La. 1963). · cites it 2× “His attempted left turn into a private driveway, at a time when a fast moving vehicle was approaching a short distance from *157 his rear, was an exceedingly dangerous maneuver and clearly violative of LRS 32:235. However, the jury and trial judge, who saw and heard the…”

Chaney v. Nat'l RR Passenger Corp., 583 So. 2d 926 (La. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 3× “R.S. 32:235(B). [2] The plaintiff contends that this statute imposes a legal duty on a political subdivision such as the City of Ponchatoula to erect warning signs sufficient to warn motorists of hazardous conditions.”

Wall v. Am. Employers Ins. Co., 215 So. 2d 913 (La. Ct. App. 1969). · cites it 5× “32 (The Highway Regulatory Act), specifically LSA-R.S. 32:235, exempt the Department of responsibility for maintaining, signing or marking any roads or highways not expressly included within the state highway system as defined in LSA-R.”

Humphries v. La. Dept. of Pub. Works, Div. Of Transp., 545 So. 2d 610 (La. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 4× “It argues that it followed the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices in its placement of the "end construction" sign on the shoulder of the highway, and under LSA-R.S. 32:235 E it discharged its obligations to the motoring public.”

Lanasa v. Harrison, 828 So. 2d 602 (La. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “Next, the DOTD argues that the trial court erred by not following LSA-R.S. 32:235(E), which provides that evidence showing that traffic warning devices are in compliance with appropriate design standards presents a prima facie proof of adequacy.”

McCandless v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 120 So. 2d 501 (La. 1960). · cites it 4× “He was of the opinion that had the driver observed LSA-R.S. 32:235, the accident would never liave happened.”

Stephens v. State Through Dept. of Transp., 440 So. 2d 920 (La. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “the closure of the exterior lane of a multi-lane highway is necessary for fewer than 15 minutes, the following measures must be effectuated at an absolute minimum: the work vehicle must be mounted with a flashing light, a warning sign and two flags, moreover, a "special…”

Donavan v. Jones, 658 So. 2d 755 (La. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “R.S. 32:235 A. Compliance with the provisions of the manual is only prima facie proof of a road authority's absence of fault.”

Oakley v. Thebault, 684 So. 2d 488 (La. Ct. App. 1996). “As part and parcel of the Highway Regulatory Act, the Uniform Highway Marking System is controlled by LSA-R.S. 32:235, which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: B.”

Johnson v. Wilson, 97 So. 2d 674 (La. Ct. App. 1958). · cites it 3× “" LSA-R.S. 32:235 provides: "B. * * * [T] driver of a vehicle * * * intending to turn to the left shall approach such intersection in the lane for traffic to the right of and nearest the center line of the highway and in turning shall pass beyond the center of the intersection,…”

Show all 185 citing cases →

— La. Rev. Stat. § 32:235(A) — 11 cases

Wall v. Am. Employers Ins. Co., 215 So. 2d 913 (La. Ct. App. 1969). “32 (The Highway Regulatory Act), specifically LSA-R.S. 32:235, exempt the Department of responsibility for maintaining, signing or marking any roads or highways not expressly included within the state highway system as defined in LSA-R.”

Hatcher v. State Through Dept. of Transp. & Dev., 467 So. 2d 584 (La. Ct. App. 1985).

Rodgers v. Nat'l Dealer Servs., Inc., 508 So. 2d 1007 (La. Ct. App. 1987).

SUCCESSION OF THEROIT v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 560 So. 2d 861 (La. Ct. App. 1990).

Lamaire v. Motor Convoy, Inc., 625 So. 2d 638 (La. Ct. App. 1993).

— La. Rev. Stat. § 32:235(B) — 29 cases

Archon v. Union Pac. RR, 657 So. 2d 987 (La. 1995). “1987); La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 32:235(B) (West 1989).”

Chaney v. Nat'l RR Passenger Corp., 583 So. 2d 926 (La. Ct. App. 1991). “R.S. 32:235(B). [2] The plaintiff contends that this statute imposes a legal duty on a political subdivision such as the City of Ponchatoula to erect warning signs sufficient to warn motorists of hazardous conditions.”

Daigle v. Hanson, 476 So. 2d 953 (La. Ct. App. 1985).

Johnson v. Wilson, 118 So. 2d 450 (La. 1960).

Bellard v. South Cent. Bell Tel. Co., 702 So. 2d 695 (La. Ct. App. 1997).

— La. Rev. Stat. § 32:235(C) — 3 cases

Kelly v. City of Bossier City, 945 So. 2d 229 (La. Ct. App. 2006).

Michael Brantley, Jr. Versus City of Gretna & Redflex Traffic Sys., Inc. (La. Ct. App. 2022).

St. Amant v. Callais & Sons, Inc., 508 So. 2d 887 (La. Ct. App. 1987).

— La. Rev. Stat. § 32:235(E) — 14 cases

Lanasa v. Harrison, 828 So. 2d 602 (La. Ct. App. 2002). “Next, the DOTD argues that the trial court erred by not following LSA-R.S. 32:235(E), which provides that evidence showing that traffic warning devices are in compliance with appropriate design standards presents a prima facie proof of adequacy.”

Reichert v. State, Dept. of Transp. & Dev., 694 So. 2d 193 (La. 1997). “-R.S. 32:235 E [2] by having two signs prior to the intersection in question, namely, a crossroad caution sign and a junction sign.”

Hatcher v. State Through Dept. of Transp. & Dev., 467 So. 2d 584 (La. Ct. App. 1985).

Harvey v. State, Dotd, 799 So. 2d 569 (La. Ct. App. 2001).

Skulich v. Fuller, 82 So. 3d 467 (La. Ct. App. 2011).

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.