Section 2. Except as herein otherwise provided, the driver of a vehicle passing another vehicle traveling in the same direction shall drive a safe distance to the left of such other vehicle and shall not return to the right until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle; and, if the way is of sufficient width for the two vehicles to pass, the driver of the leading one shall not unnecessarily obstruct the other. If it is not possible to overtake a vulnerable user, as defined in section 1 of chapter 90, or other vehicle at a safe distance in the same lane, the overtaking vehicle shall use all or part of an adjacent lane, crossing the centerline if necessary, when it is safe to do so and while adhering to the roadway speed limit. Except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted, the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle on visible signal and shall not increase the speed of his vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle.
The driver of a vehicle may, if the roadway is free from obstruction and of sufficient width for two or more lines of moving vehicles, overtake and pass upon the right of another vehicle when the vehicle overtaken is (a) making or about to make a left turn, (b) upon a one-way street, or (c) upon any roadway on which traffic is restricted to one direction of movement.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases, 1928–2013 · leading case:
Damon v. Hukowicz, 964 F. Supp. 2d 120 (D. Mass. 2013).
Damon v. Hukowicz, 964 F. Supp. 2d 120 (D. Mass. 2013).
· cites it 6× “06(5) provides that: [s]ubject to the provisions of M.G.L. c. 89, § 2, the driver of a vehicle when about to be overtaken and passed by another vehicle approaching from the rear shall give way to the right when practicable in favor of the overtaking vehicle, on suitable and…”
Finnegan v. Checker Taxi Co., 14 N.E.2d 127 (Mass. 1938).
· cites it 2× “” A statutory rule of the road (G. L. c. 89, § 2) then in force provided: “The driver of a vehicle passing another vehicle traveling in the same direction shall drive to the left of the middle of the traveled part of a way .”
Cannon v. Bassett, 162 N.E. 772 (Mass. 1928).
“There is nothing which, as matter of law, establishes that the defendant’s servant was free from carelessness, or that the plaintiffs contributed to their injury by lack of due care.”
Anzoni v. Gosse, 175 N.E. 57 (Mass. 1931).
“Even if it be assumed that G. L. c. 89, § 2, was enacted for the benefit of the driver of a vehicle overtaken by a vehicle coming from the rear, the defendant was not harmed by the instruction given.”
Spina v. Lucas, 20 Mass. App. Dec. 135 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1961).
“We think that on the third count of the declaration, which was added at the time of trial, the court was warranted in finding that the defendant Lucas was negligent on these facts: The plaintiff’s car was stopped at a stop sign; the defendant passed him on the right in violation…”
Mizher v. McInnis, 17 Mass. App. Dec. 27 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1961).
“She passed a motor vehicle traveling in the same direction on the right, rather than on the left of such other vehicle, in violation of G. L. c. 89, §2. This violation was also evidence of negligence.”
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.