Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 257 / Act 300 of 1949
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.655 (2026)

Pedestrians on highways; 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


257.655 Pedestrians on highways; violation as civil infraction.

Sec. 655.

    (1) Where sidewalks are provided, a pedestrian shall not walk upon the main traveled portion of the highway. Where sidewalks are not provided, pedestrians shall, when practicable, walk on the left side of the highway facing traffic which passes nearest.

    (2) 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 22 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1956–2024 · leading case: Zeni v. Anderson, 243 N.W.2d 270 (Mich. 1976).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Zeni v. Anderson, 243 N.W.2d 270 (Mich. 1976). · cites it 6× “Defendant, however, maintained that plaintiff's failure to use that sidewalk constituted contributory negligence because, she said, it violated MCLA 257.655; MSA 9.2355, which requires: "Where sidewalks are provided, it shall be unlawful for pedestrians to walk upon the main…”
Cole v. Auto-Owners Ins., 723 N.W.2d 922 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “See also MCL 257.655 (providing when a pedestrian may walk on a highway); Bird v Gabris, 53 Mich App 164, 167 ; 218 NW2d 871 (1974) (holding that a person who attempted to flag down an oncoming vehicle in an effort to avoid an accident was not a pedestrian within the meaning of…”
Zeni v. Anderson, 224 N.W.2d 310 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 8× “Defendants denied all allegations of negligence and pled the affirmative defense of contributory negligence, based upon a violation of MCLA 257.655; MSA 9.2355, which provides: "Where sidewalks are provided, it shall be unlawful for pedestrians to walk upon the main traveled…”
Ronda Rae Jones v. Steven Naert, 121 F.4th 558 (6th Cir. 2024). “See Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.655 . And Jones’s actions were not unusual—Officer Naert testified that he often saw pedestrian traffic on that part of Wacousta Road.”
Richardson v. Grezeszak, 99 N.W.2d 648 (Mich. 1959). · cites it 4× “* The court further charged in substance that if plaintiff was walking on the pavement at the time he was struck by defendants’ automobile he could not recover, such charge being based on section 655 of the motor vehicle code of 1949 (CLS 1956, § 257.655 [Stat Ann 1952 Rev §…”
Roy v. Dep't of Transp., 408 N.W.2d 783 (Mich. 1987). “Like bicyclists, pedestrians are permitted to use highways when sidewalks are not provided, MCL 257.655; MSA 9.2355. Like bicyclists, pedestrians are forbidden to *336 use limited access highways, 5 MCL 257.”
United States v. Billy Chambers, 646 F. App'x 445 (6th Cir. 2016). “”); see also id. § 257.655(2) *447 (stating that violating this statute is a civil infraction).”
People v. Laube, 397 N.W.2d 325 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “They later cited the following facts as their reasons for stopping the defendant: (1) the fact that he was hitchhiking; (2) the fact that he was committing a civil infraction by not walking in a northerly direction in the southbound lane, *403 against traffic, see MCL 257.655;…”
Massey v. Scripter, 258 N.W.2d 44 (Mich. 1977). “Zeni’s failure to use the sidewalk constituted contributory negligence as it violated MCLA 257.655; MSA 9.2355, which requires: "Where sidewalks are provided, it shall be unlawful for pedestrians to walk upon the main traveled portion of the highway.”
Martin v. Leslie, 76 N.W.2d 71 (Mich. 1956). “Defendant first asserts that plaintiff was unlawfully on the highway, citing to us that plaintiff was *309 walking on 13 Mile road, contrary to PA 1949, No 300, § 656 (CLS 1954, § 257.655 [Stat Ann 1952 Rev § 9.2355]), which provides: “Where sidewalks are provided, it shall he…”
Bird v. Gabris, 218 N.W.2d 871 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974). “At the close of all the proofs defendants requested an instruction to the jury on the statute, MCLA 257.655; MSA 9.2355. The court refused to give this instruction on the ground that it was not applicable to the facts of the case.”
Bell v. Merritt, 325 N.W.2d 443 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). “These two instructions addressed the matter of plaintiff’s violation *421 of MCL 257.655; MSA 9.2355, failure to walk on the left side of the road facing traffic.”
Show all 22 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.655(1) — 3 cases
United States v. Billy Chambers, 646 F. App'x 445 (6th Cir. 2016). “”); see also id. § 257.655(2) *447 (stating that violating this statute is a civil infraction).”
Est. of Evania Barbara Schobloher v. Christopher John Cieslak (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
Est. of Bryan Lewis v. Barbara Ann Messick (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.655(2) — 1 case
Est. of Bryan Lewis v. Barbara Ann Messick (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
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.