§
Subdivision 1.Lights to be displayed.
(a) Every vehicle upon a highway within this state:
(1) at any time from sunset to sunrise;
(2) at any time when it is raining, snowing, sleeting, or hailing; and
(3) at any other time when visibility is impaired by weather, smoke, fog or other conditions or 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 headlamps, lighted tail lamps, and illuminating devices, as hereinafter, respectively, required for different classes of vehicles, subject to exceptions with respect to parked vehicles and law enforcement vehicles, as hereinafter stated. In addition to the other requirements of this paragraph, every school bus transporting children upon a highway within this state, at any time from a half hour before sunrise to a half hour after sunset, shall display lighted headlamps, lighted tail lamps, and illuminating devices as required by this paragraph, except that the operator shall use the lowermost distribution of light specified in section 169.60 unless conditions warrant otherwise.
(b) When 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, these provisions shall apply during the time stated in this section upon a straight level unlighted highway under normal atmospheric conditions unless a different time or condition is expressly stated and unless otherwise specified the location of lamps and devices shall refer to the center of such lamps or devices. Parking lamps shall not be used in lieu of headlamps to satisfy the requirements of this section.
§
Subd. 2.Certain violations; negligence.
Notwithstanding section 169.96, a violation of subdivision 1, paragraph (a), clause (2), is not negligence per se or prima facie evidence of negligence.
Notes of Decisions
State of Minnesota v. Catherine Nyree McCabe, 890 N.W.2d 173 (Minn. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 13× “Minn. Stat. § 169.48 , subd. 1(a). In interpreting the statute, the district court combined the inclement-weather provision (subdivision 1(a)(2)) with the visibility provision (subdivision 1(a)(3)) ¡and concluded that, even when it is raining, a driver need not display lighted…”
State v. Battleson, 567 N.W.2d 69 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 169.48, subd. 1 (1996), provides that every vehicle on a Minnesota highway “shall display lighted lamps and illuminating devices” from sunset to sunrise.”
State v. Loge, 589 N.W.2d 491 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 4× “34 (1996) (prohibiting drivers from parking a vehicle in certain specified locations including a public or private driveway and an intersection); Minn. Stat. § 169.48 (1996) (requiring vehicles to display specific lighted lamps and illuminating devices).”
Maanum v. Aust, 364 N.W.2d 827 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 4× “Wersinger’s negligence consisted of continuing to drive without proper vehicle illumination, see Minn.Stat. §§ 169.48 and 169.50 (1982), at an inappropriately fast rate of speed, see Minn.”
United States v. Barraza-Maldonado, 879 F. Supp. 2d 1022 (D. Minnesota 2012).
· cites it 2× “71; and (2) even though it was sleeting, the Maxima’s headlights were not turned on, as required by Minn.Stat. § 169.48. See United States v.”
Thelen v. Spilman, 86 N.W.2d 700 (Minn. 1957).
“” The court’s charge included the reading of § 169.48, which requires lights “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…”
Schlukebier v. LaClair, 127 N.W.2d 693 (Minn. 1964).
“3), vehicle lighting (§ 169.48), and speed limits where no special hazards exist (§ 169.”
Vasatka v. Matsch, 13 N.W.2d 483 (Minn. 1944).
“Neither can it be said as a matter of law that Robert found himself in a position of peril solely because of his own negligence so as thereby to eliminate the application of the emergency doctrine to his conduct. The jury might well conclude that Robert had been placed in…”
State of Minnesota v. Sergey Alekseyevich Porada (Minn. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 18× “UNPUBLISHED OPINION HALBROOKS, Judge Appellant challenges his conviction of driving without his headlights or taillights illuminated after sunset under Minn. Stat. § 169.48 , subd. 1(a)(1) (2014).”
Janssen v. Neal, 256 N.W.2d 292 (Minn. 1977).
“1971, §§ 169.48, 169.50, subd. 1, which required that a vehicle be equipped with at least one red taillight visible from 500 feet if driven one-half hour after sunset.”
— Minn. Stat. § 169.48(l)(a) — 1 case
State of Minnesota v. Catherine Nyree McCabe, 890 N.W.2d 173 (Minn. Ct. App. 2017).
“Minn. Stat. § 169.48 , subd. 1(a). In interpreting the statute, the district court combined the inclement-weather provision (subdivision 1(a)(2)) with the visibility provision (subdivision 1(a)(3)) ¡and concluded that, even when it is raining, a driver need not display lighted…”
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.