MICHIGAN VEHICLE CODE
Act 300 of 1949
257.684 Head lamps; lighting, distance, height.
Sec. 684.
(a) Every vehicle upon a highway within this state at any time from a half hour after sunset to a half hour before sunrise and at any other time when there is not sufficient light to render clearly discernible persons and vehicles on the highway at a distance of 500 feet ahead shall display lighted lamps and illuminating devices as hereinafter respectively required for different classes of vehicles, subject to exceptions with respect to parked vehicles as hereinafter stated. When lighted lamps and illuminated devices are required by law no vehicle shall be operated upon any highway of this state with only the parking lights illuminated on the front of the vehicle.
(b) Whenever requirement is hereinafter declared as to the distance from which certain lamps and devices shall render objects visible or within which such lamps or devices shall be visible, said provisions shall apply during the times stated in paragraph (a) of this section upon a straight, level, unlighted highway under normal atmospheric conditions unless a different time or condition is expressly stated.
(c) Whenever requirement is hereinafter declared as to the mounted height of lamps or devices, it shall mean from the center of such lamp or device to the level ground upon which the vehicle stands when such vehicle is without a load.
History: 1949, Act 300, Eff. Sept. 23, 1949 ;-- Am. 1961, Act 160, Eff. Sept. 8, 1961 ;-- Am. 1963, Act 58, Eff. Sept. 6, 1963
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
17
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1960–2022 · leading case:
Wolfgram v. Valko, 134 N.W.2d 649 (Mich. 1965).
Wolfgram v. Valko, 134 N.W.2d 649 (Mich. 1965).
· cites it 2× “As for defendant Valko, the court directed a verdict in his favor on the ground of decedent’s contributory negligence in traveling in the dark of night without lighted headlights contrary to statute (CLS 1961, §§ 257.684, 257.685 [Stat Ann 1961 Cum Supp § 9.”
Schian v. Bierlein, 119 N.W.2d 611 (Mich. 1963).
· cites it 2× “" [2] Paragraph (a) of section 684 of the Michigan vehicle code (CLS 1956, § 257.684 [Stat Ann 1960 Rev § 9.2384]), reads: "Every vehicle upon a highway within this State at any time from a half hour after sunset to a half hour before sunrise and at any other time when there is…”
Dauer v. Zabel, 172 N.W.2d 701 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969).
“Bierlein (1963), 369 Mich 219, 221 , held that the question of failure to comply with the pertinent statutory provisions (CLS 1956, §§ 257.684, 257.686 [Stat Ann 1960 Rev §§ 9.”
Johnson v. Miller, 100 N.W.2d 275 (Mich. 1960).
· cites it 2× “” *531 Another section of the same motor vehicle code (CLS 1956, § 257.684 [Stat Ann 1952 Rev § 9.2384]) provides as follows: “(b) Whenever requirement is hereinafter declared as to the distance from which certain lamps and devices shall render objects visible or within which…”
Mowinski v. Bishop, 163 N.W.2d 655 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).
“Was the verdict against the great weight of the evidence? The main defense against plaintiff’s allegation of defendant driver’s negligence in operating the car was their denial of such negligence and their claim that the proximate cause of the collision was the negligence of…”
Wills v. State Farm Ins. Companies, 443 N.W.2d 396 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989).
“2394 and MCL 257.684; MSA 9.2384. 7 There is some question as to whether the automobile was located *267 "upon a highway” under the statute.”
Pick v Szymczak, 548 N.W.2d 603 (Mich. 1996).
· cites it 2× “§ 257.684; M.S.A. § 9.2384. Even the number and required intensity of these headlamps is specified by statute.”
Est. of Earl King v. Christopher Sawyers (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 4× “More specifically, Hall opined that pursuant to MCL 257.684, which requires the activation of headlights on vehicles “when there is not sufficient light to render clearly discernible persons and vehicles on the highway at a distance of 500 feet ahead” meant that defendant should…”
Est. of Earl King v. Christopher Sawyers (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 4× “More specifically, Hall opined that pursuant to MCL 257.684, which requires the activation of headlights on vehicles “when there is not sufficient light to render clearly discernible persons and vehicles on the highway at a distance of 500 feet ahead” meant that defendant should…”
People of Michigan v. Steven Duane Dent (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “By contrast, defendant would have violated MCL 257.684(1) if he were required to have his headlights on because of the time of day, but did not.”
People of Michigan v. Calvin Tillman (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 2× “We conclude that the police had the authority to make the stop for failure to have the headlights activated while defendant was driving on the roadway, even though it was for a very short distance, MCL 257.684(a).1 There was a clear violation of the statute.”
People of Michigan v. Calvin Tillman (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 2× “We conclude that the police had the authority to make the stop for failure to have the headlights activated while defendant was driving on the roadway, even though it was for a very short distance, MCL 257.684(a).1 There was a clear violation of the statute.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.684(1) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Steven Duane Dent (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“By contrast, defendant would have violated MCL 257.684(1) if he were required to have his headlights on because of the time of day, but did not.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.684(a) — 5 cases
People of Michigan v. Calvin Tillman (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“We conclude that the police had the authority to make the stop for failure to have the headlights activated while defendant was driving on the roadway, even though it was for a very short distance, MCL 257.684(a).1 There was a clear violation of the statute.”
People of Michigan v. Calvin Tillman (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“We conclude that the police had the authority to make the stop for failure to have the headlights activated while defendant was driving on the roadway, even though it was for a very short distance, MCL 257.684(a).1 There was a clear violation of the statute.”
People of Michigan v. Steven Duane Dent (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“By contrast, defendant would have violated MCL 257.684(1) if he were required to have his headlights on because of the time of day, but did not.”
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.