MICHIGAN VEHICLE CODE
Act 300 of 1949
257.649 Right of way; rules; violation as civil infraction.
Sec. 649.
(1) The driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection shall yield the right of way to a vehicle that has entered the intersection from a different highway.
(2) When 2 vehicles enter an intersection from different highways at approximately the same time, the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right of way to the vehicle on the right.
(3) The right of way rules in subsections (1) and (2) are modified at through highways and otherwise as provided in subsection (4) and in this chapter.
(4) The driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection that is controlled by a traffic control signal shall do all of the following, if the signal facing the driver exhibits no colored lights or colored lighted arrows, exhibits a combination of colored lights or colored lighted arrows that fails to clearly indicate the assignment of right of way, or the signals are otherwise malfunctioning:
(a) Stop at a clearly marked stop line, or, if there is no clearly marked stop line, stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or, if there is no crosswalk, stop before entering the intersection.
(b) Yield the right of way to all vehicles in the intersection or approaching on an intersecting road, if those vehicles will constitute an immediate hazard during the time the driver is moving across or within the intersection.
(c) Exercise ordinary care while proceeding through the intersection.
(5) Subsection (4) does not apply to either of the following:
(a) An intersection that is controlled by a traffic control signal that is flashing yellow unless certain events occur, including, but not limited to, activation by an emergency vehicle.
(b) A traffic control signal that is located in a school zone and is flashing yellow only during prescribed periods of time.
(6) The driver of a vehicle approaching a yield sign, in obedience to the sign, shall slow down to a speed reasonable for the existing conditions and shall yield the right of way to a vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another highway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time the driver would be moving across or within the intersection. However, if required for safety to stop, the driver shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if there is not a crosswalk, at a clearly marked stop line; but if there is not a crosswalk or a clearly marked stop line, then at the point nearest the intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway.
(7) The driver of a vehicle traveling at an unlawful speed forfeits a right of way that the driver might otherwise have under this section.
(8) Except when directed to proceed by a police officer, the driver of a vehicle approaching a stop intersection indicated by a stop sign shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if there is not a crosswalk shall stop at a clearly marked stop line; or if there is not a crosswalk or a clearly marked stop line, then at the point nearest the intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway. After having stopped, the driver shall yield the right of way to a vehicle that has entered the intersection from another highway or that is approaching so closely on the highway as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time when the driver would be moving across or within the intersection.
(9) When a vehicle approaches the intersection of a highway from an intersecting highway or street that is intended to be, and is constructed as, a merging highway or street, and is plainly marked at the intersection with appropriate merge signs, the vehicle shall yield right of way to a vehicle so close as to constitute an immediate hazard on the highway about to be entered and shall adjust its speed so as to enable it to merge safely with the through traffic.
(10) A person who violates this section is responsible for a civil infraction.
History: 1949, Act 300, Eff. Sept. 23, 1949 ;-- Am. 1955, Act 165, Imd. Eff. June 13, 1955 ;-- Am. 1959, Act 234, Eff. Mar. 19, 1960 ;-- Am. 1966, Act 237, Eff. Mar. 10, 1967 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 510, Eff. Aug. 1, 1979 ;-- Am. 2018, Act 109, Eff. July 23, 2018
Notes of Decisions
Placek v. City of Sterling Heights, 275 N.W.2d 511 (Mich. 1979).
· cites it 2× “One is MCL 257.649(f); MSA 9.2349(f), which gives the driver on a through street the right of way paramount to a driver traveling on a stop street, "Except when directed to proceed by a police officer, the driver of a vehicle approaching a stop intersection indicated by a stop…”
Earls v. Herrick, 309 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 2× “Similarly, a jury might have found that the scars on Betty Earls’ arm, which turned pinkish-red in hot weather and caused her embarrassment, constituted a serious disfigurement based on her testimony. Reversed and remanded for trial.”
Newton v. Michigan State Police, 688 N.W.2d 94 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
“” MCL 257.649(6). With regard to vehicle speed as an explanation for an accident, MCL 257.”
Washburn v. Lucas, 130 N.W.2d 406 (Mich. 1964).
· cites it 2× “The intersection being uncontrolled except by the right-of-way statute (CLS 1961, § 257.649 [Stat Ann 1960 Rev § 9.2349]), and plaintiff having approached it from the east while defendant's automobile approached roughly equidistant from the north at approximately the same…”
Rouse v. Gross, 98 N.W.2d 562 (Mich. 1959).
· cites it 2× “Under the right-of-way statute (CLS 1954, § 257.649 [Stat Ann 1952 Rev §9.2349]), defendant, as the party on the right, had the right-of-way if the jury found both automobiles entered the intersection at the same time.”
Weller v. Mancha, 87 N.W.2d 134 (Mich. 1958).
· cites it 2× “The basis of the claim is found in CLS 1956, § 257.649 (Stat Ann 1955 Cum Supp § 9.2349), which, insofar as material here, provides: *61 “When 2 vehicles enter an intersection at approximately the same time, the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right-of-way to…”
Diamond v. Holstein, 127 N.W.2d 896 (Mich. 1964).
· cites it 2× “I am unable to agree that we should say, or even infer, that the favor accorded by statute (CLS 1956, § 257.649 [Stat Ann 1957 Cum Supp § 9.2349]) to the driver who approaches from the right has application to this right-angled country "T" intersection case.”
Weller v. Mancha, 91 N.W.2d 352 (Mich. 1958).
“NOTES [*] See CLS 1956, § 257.649 (Stat Ann 1955 Cum Supp § 9.2349).”
Holloway v. Cronk, 257 N.W.2d 175 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 6× “Defendant’s contention that the trial judge erred in his instructions to the jury regarding MCLA 257.649; MSA 9.2349 is also without merit.”
Sabo v. Beatty, 197 N.W.2d 871 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972).
· cites it 4× “These rules are found in MCLA 257.649; MSA 9.2349; MCLA 257.649; MSA 9.”
People v. McIntosh, 178 N.W.2d 809 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).
· cites it 4× “Defendant was issued a traffic ticket and charged with violating MCLA § 257.649(f) [Stat Ann 1968 Rev § 9.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.649(1) — 2 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.649(5) — 2 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.649(6) — 5 cases
Newton v. Michigan State Police, 688 N.W.2d 94 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
“” MCL 257.649(6). With regard to vehicle speed as an explanation for an accident, MCL 257.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.649(7) — 6 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.649(8) — 11 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.649(b) — 3 cases
Earls v. Herrick, 309 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981).
“Similarly, a jury might have found that the scars on Betty Earls’ arm, which turned pinkish-red in hot weather and caused her embarrassment, constituted a serious disfigurement based on her testimony. Reversed and remanded for trial.”
Sabo v. Beatty, 197 N.W.2d 871 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972).
“These rules are found in MCLA 257.649; MSA 9.2349; MCLA 257.649; MSA 9.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.649(e) — 4 cases
Earls v. Herrick, 309 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981).
“Similarly, a jury might have found that the scars on Betty Earls’ arm, which turned pinkish-red in hot weather and caused her embarrassment, constituted a serious disfigurement based on her testimony. Reversed and remanded for trial.”
Holloway v. Cronk, 257 N.W.2d 175 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).
“Defendant’s contention that the trial judge erred in his instructions to the jury regarding MCLA 257.649; MSA 9.2349 is also without merit.”
Sabo v. Beatty, 197 N.W.2d 871 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972).
“These rules are found in MCLA 257.649; MSA 9.2349; MCLA 257.649; MSA 9.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.649(f) — 3 cases
Placek v. City of Sterling Heights, 275 N.W.2d 511 (Mich. 1979).
“One is MCL 257.649(f); MSA 9.2349(f), which gives the driver on a through street the right of way paramount to a driver traveling on a stop street, "Except when directed to proceed by a police officer, the driver of a vehicle approaching a stop intersection indicated by a stop…”
People v. McIntosh, 178 N.W.2d 809 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).
“Defendant was issued a traffic ticket and charged with violating MCLA § 257.649(f) [Stat Ann 1968 Rev § 9.”
Holloway v. Cronk, 257 N.W.2d 175 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).
“Defendant’s contention that the trial judge erred in his instructions to the jury regarding MCLA 257.649; MSA 9.2349 is also without merit.”
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.