MICHIGAN VEHICLE CODE
Act 300 of 1949
257.615 Signs or lights resembling traffic-control devices or emergency vehicles; commercial advertising on traffic signs; prohibition; public nuisance; removal; placement of street decorations and banners.
Sec. 615.
(a) Except with authority of a statute or of a duly authorized public body or official, no person shall place, maintain, or display along any highway or upon any structure in or over any highway any sign, signal, marking, device, blinking, oscillating or rotating light or lights, decoration or banner which is or purports to be or is in imitation of or resembles or which can be mistaken for a traffic control device or railroad sign or signal, or which attempts to direct the movement of traffic, or which hides from view or interferes with the effectiveness of any traffic control device or any railroad sign or signal, and no person shall place or maintain nor shall any public authority permit upon any highway any traffic sign or signal bearing thereon any commercial advertising.
(b) No person shall place, maintain or display along any highway any blinking, oscillating or rotating light or lights sufficiently similar in color and design that they may be mistaken for the distinguishing lights authorized by law for emergency vehicles or that creates a hazard for the safety of drivers using said highways.
(c) Every such prohibited sign, signal, marking, device, decoration or banner is hereby declared to be a public nuisance and the authority having jurisdiction over the highway is hereby empowered to remove the same or cause to be removed without notice.
(d) Decorations or banners which may be placed over the traveled portion of any street or highway shall be placed not closer than 10 feet on either side of traffic lights or signals and shall be so placed as to not obstruct a clear view of such traffic lights or signals.
History: 1949, Act 300, Eff. Sept. 23, 1949 ;-- Am. 1955, Act 245, Eff. Oct. 14, 1955 ;-- Am. 1957, Act 112, Eff. Sept. 27, 1957 ;-- Am. 1958, Act 98, Eff. Sept. 13, 1958
Notes of Decisions
Kovacs v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 351 N.W.2d 581 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984).
“Finally, we reject defendant’s argument that the trial court erred in refusing to direct a verdict on defendant’s failure to provide adequate protection devices at the Potts Road crossing. It is true that railroads may not, without state authorization, install or maintain "any…”
Cryderman v. Soo Line R.R. Co., 260 N.W.2d 135 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).
“Viewed in this light, defendant’s arguments regarding the legal ramifications of MCLA 469.2; MSA 22.”
Johnson v. Grand Trunk W. R.R., 228 N.W.2d 795 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975).
· cites it 2× “We recognize that MCLA 257.615; MSA 9.2315, has been interpreted as prohibiting railroads from installing any sign or signal at railroad crossings without authorization from the MPSC.”
People v. Grand Trunk W. R.R., 142 N.W.2d 54 (Mich. Ct. App. 1966).
· cites it 2× “This appeal presents but one question for this Court to review, to wit: Does PA 1949, No 300, § 615 as amended by PA 1958, No 98 (CLS 1961, § 257.615 [Stat Ann 1960 Rev § 9.2315]), prohibit a railroad from erecting traffic control “yield right of way” signs on highway property…”
Paddock v. Tuscola & Saginaw Bay Ry. Co., 571 N.W.2d 564 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997).
“2368, as well as MCL 257.615(a); MSA 9.2315(a), the duty to determine the appropriate warning devices to be installed at railroad crossings lies with the appropriate governmental entity with jurisdiction over the roadway, not with the railroad.”
Turner v. CSX Transp., Inc., 497 N.W.2d 571 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).
“2368, as well as MCL 257.615(a); MSA 9.2315(a), the duty to determine the appropriate warning devices to be installed at railroad crossings lies with the appropriate governmental entity with jurisdiction over the roadway, not with the railroad.”
Harrison v. Grand Trunk W. R.R. Co., 413 N.W.2d 429 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 4× “MCL 257.615; MSA 9.2315. In the same vein, the liability of county road commissions at railroad crossings is limited as follows: The erection of or failure to erect, replace, or maintain a stop or yield sign or other railroad warning device, unless such devices or signs were…”
Decker v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 265 N.W.2d 785 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 2× “Defendant’s supplemental request to charge (No. 1) was not given because it would deprive the jury of its determination of testimony regarding protection at the railroad crossing.”
People of the City of Dearborn v. Patricia Hutchinson Turner (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“Thus, given the clear and unambiguous language of MCL 257.615(13), which we must enforce as written, see Phillips, 469 Mich at 395 , the circuit court erred in ordering defendant to pay the costs for a matter on appeal.”
Berk v. Blaha, 174 N.W.2d 870 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969).
“Defendant had a right to assume that plaintiff would stop at the signal as required by law (MOLA § 257.615 [Stat Ann 1968 Rev § 9.2314]). Further, from the testimony in this case there is no indication that the defendant was guilty of negligence from the point that he observed…”
Calkins v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 179 N.W.2d 53 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).
· cites it 2× “7271 and 7272 allege that the railroad owed the principal plaintiffs a “common-law duty to use ordinary care and prudence * * *; to give motorists adequate, timely warning of the approach of its trains; * * * to maintain warning devices in addition to those maintained at the…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.615(13) — 1 case
People of the City of Dearborn v. Patricia Hutchinson Turner (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“Thus, given the clear and unambiguous language of MCL 257.615(13), which we must enforce as written, see Phillips, 469 Mich at 395 , the circuit court erred in ordering defendant to pay the costs for a matter on appeal.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.615(a) — 2 cases
Paddock v. Tuscola & Saginaw Bay Ry. Co., 571 N.W.2d 564 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997).
“2368, as well as MCL 257.615(a); MSA 9.2315(a), the duty to determine the appropriate warning devices to be installed at railroad crossings lies with the appropriate governmental entity with jurisdiction over the roadway, not with the railroad.”
Turner v. CSX Transp., Inc., 497 N.W.2d 571 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).
“2368, as well as MCL 257.615(a); MSA 9.2315(a), the duty to determine the appropriate warning devices to be installed at railroad crossings lies with the appropriate governmental entity with jurisdiction over the roadway, not with the railroad.”
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.