Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.653 (2026)

Immediate approach of authorized emergency vehicle; duty of driver of another vehicle; duty of streetcar operator; 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

257.653 Immediate approach of authorized emergency vehicle; duty of driver of another vehicle; duty of streetcar operator; violation as civil infraction.

Sec. 653.

(1) Upon the immediate approach of an authorized emergency vehicle equipped with not less than 1 lighted flashing, rotating, or oscillating lamp exhibiting a red or blue light visible under normal atmospheric condition from a distance of 500 feet to the front of the vehicle and when the driver is giving audible signal by siren, exhaust whistle, or bell:

(a) The driver of another vehicle shall yield the right of way and shall immediately drive to a position parallel to and as close as possible to the right-hand edge or curb of the roadway, clear of an intersection, and shall stop and remain in that position until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed, except when otherwise directed by a police officer.

(b) The operator of a streetcar shall immediately stop the car, clear of an intersection, and shall keep it in that position until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed, except when otherwise directed by a police officer.

(2) This section does not relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of persons using the highway.

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

History: 1949, Act 300, Eff. Sept. 23, 1949 ;-- Am. 1951, Act 270, Eff. Sept. 28, 1951 ;-- Am. 1964, Act 7, Imd. Eff. Mar. 20, 1964 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 510, Eff. Aug. 1, 1979

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 21 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1952–2026 · leading case: Robinson v. City of Detroit, 613 N.W.2d 307 (Mich. 2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Robinson v. City of Detroit, 613 N.W.2d 307 (Mich. 2000). · cites it 2× “” Further, MCL 257.653; MSA 9.2353, *452 which requires drivers to pull over upon the approach of an emergency vehicle with flashing lights, specifically states that the statute does not relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard…”

Placek v. City of Sterling Heights, 275 N.W.2d 511 (Mich. 1979). · cites it 2× “The driver of every other vehicle shall yield the right of way * * * * * * "(b) This section shall not operate to relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons using the highway.”

Newton v. Michigan State Police, 688 N.W.2d 94 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 3× “MCL 257.653. 7 A driver approach *267 ing a stop sign is required to stop and yield the right of way to a vehicle “which has entered the intersection from another highway or which is approaching so closely on the highway as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time when…”

Sandra Rupert v. Freda Daggett, 695 F.3d 417 (6th Cir. 2012). “2d 605, 607 (1956)); see also Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.653 (2) (providing that drivers of emergency vehicles are not relieved “from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of persons using the highway”).”

McKay v. Hargis, 88 N.W.2d 456 (Mich. 1958). “CLS 1956, § 257.653 (Stat Ann 1952 Rev § 9.2353). The applicable portions of these statutes and the conditions contained therein were included in the careful charge delivered to this jury by the circuit judge.”

Hoffmaster v. McNett, 141 N.W.2d 352 (Mich. Ct. App. 1966). “Whether or not there was an emergency (or circumstances warranting the driver’s belief that there was) bringing into play the provisions of the applicable statutes CLS 1961, § 257.”

Eggebeen v. Red Top Cab Co. of Grand Rapids, 54 N.W.2d 725 (Mich. 1952). “” PA 1949, No 300, § 653 (CL 1948, § 257.653 [Stat Ann 1949 Cum Supp § 9.2353]).”

Est. of India D Sullivan v. Brett Matthew Stiles (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 7× “I am of the opinion that Brett Stiles failed to exercise due regard for public safety in the operation of the apparatus as was required of him by the Detroit Fire Department training, policies and procedures, common emergency operator driving practices, and MCL 257.653. 7. I am…”

Keevis v. Tookey, 201 N.W.2d 661 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972). · cites it 3× “MCLA 257.653; MSA 9.2353. We cannot then say that he was guilty of negligence as a matter of law by continuing through the remainder of the intersection without again glancing to his right.”

Dana Mark Gamarra v. Oakland Cnty. (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 4× “Defendants argue that “the sole and proximate cause of the subject accident was [plaintiff’s] reckless conduct in failing to yield for Deputy Dean as [was] [plaintiff’s] legal duty pursuant to MCL 257.653(1)(a).” Under that statute, a driver must yield the right-of-way to an…”

Est. of Karl Gerardi v. Sara Walters (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 4× “Another statute, MCL 257.653, more specifically declares the right-of-way rules applicable to emergency vehicles: (1) Upon the immediate approach of an authorized emergency vehicle equipped with not less than 1 lighted flashing, rotating, or oscillating lamp -6- exhibiting a red…”

Denise Ann Middleton v. Kenneth Arthur Temple (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “MCL 257.653(1)(a). This duty to yield, however, “does not relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of persons using the highway.”

Show all 21 citing cases →

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.653(1) — 1 case

Newton v. Michigan State Police, 688 N.W.2d 94 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “MCL 257.653. 7 A driver approach *267 ing a stop sign is required to stop and yield the right of way to a vehicle “which has entered the intersection from another highway or which is approaching so closely on the highway as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time when…”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.653(1)(a) — 3 cases

Dana Mark Gamarra v. Oakland Cnty. (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). “Defendants argue that “the sole and proximate cause of the subject accident was [plaintiff’s] reckless conduct in failing to yield for Deputy Dean as [was] [plaintiff’s] legal duty pursuant to MCL 257.653(1)(a).” Under that statute, a driver must yield the right-of-way to an…”

Denise Ann Middleton v. Kenneth Arthur Temple (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “MCL 257.653(1)(a). This duty to yield, however, “does not relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of persons using the highway.”

Denise Ann Middleton v. Kenneth Arthur Temple (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.653(2) — 4 cases

Est. of India D Sullivan v. Brett Matthew Stiles (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “I am of the opinion that Brett Stiles failed to exercise due regard for public safety in the operation of the apparatus as was required of him by the Detroit Fire Department training, policies and procedures, common emergency operator driving practices, and MCL 257.653. 7. I am…”

Denise Ann Middleton v. Kenneth Arthur Temple (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.653(b) — 2 cases

Keevis v. Tookey, 201 N.W.2d 661 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972). “MCLA 257.653; MSA 9.2353. We cannot then say that he was guilty of negligence as a matter of law by continuing through the remainder of the intersection without again glancing to his right.”

Grabowski v. Selman, 181 N.W.2d 72 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).

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.