Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.639 (2026)

Driving to left side of roadway; limitations; violation as civil infraction.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

MICHIGAN VEHICLE CODE

Act 300 of 1949

257.639 Driving to left side of roadway; limitations; violation as civil infraction.

Sec. 639.

(1) A vehicle shall not be driven to the left side of the roadway under the following conditions:

(a) When approaching the crest of a grade or upon a curve in the highway where the driver's view is obstructed within a distance as to create a hazard in the event another vehicle might approach from the opposite direction.

(b) When the view is obstructed upon approaching within 100 feet of a bridge, viaduct, or tunnel.

(2) The limitations of subsection (1) shall not apply upon a 1-way roadway.

(3) A person who violates this section is responsible for a civil infraction.

History: 1949, Act 300, Eff. Sept. 23, 1949 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 510, Eff. Aug. 1, 1979

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1977–2023 · leading case: Manning v. Cheboygan Area Schs., 257 N.W.2d 222 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Manning v. Cheboygan Area Schs., 257 N.W.2d 222 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). “It was error for the trial court to instruct on the theory of sudden emergency with reference to violation of MCLA 257.639; MSA 9.2339 (driving left of center when approaching the crest of a grade).”

In Re Casey Ray Baker (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “Respondent was therefore generally aware that the petitioner’s case hinged on proving that respondent had committed a lane usage violation.”

Dylan Parraghi v. Edward Chodyniecki (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “315 were subsequently recodified in MCL 257.639, but the 100-foot intersection provision was not reenacted.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.639(1) — 1 case

In Re Casey Ray Baker (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “Respondent was therefore generally aware that the petitioner’s case hinged on proving that respondent had committed a lane usage violation.”

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.