304.271. Observance of traffic-control devices — presumptions — penalty. — 1. The driver of any vehicle shall obey the instructions of any official traffic-control device applicable thereto placed in accordance with the provisions of the law, unless otherwise directed by a traffic or police officer, subject to the exceptions granted the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle in the law.
2. No provision of the law for which official traffic-control devices are required shall be enforced against an alleged violator if at the time and place of the alleged violation an official device is not in proper position and sufficiently legible to be seen by an ordinarily observant person. Whenever a particular section does not state that official traffic-control devices are required, such section shall be effective even though no devices are erected or in place.
3. Whenever official traffic-control devices are placed in position approximately conforming to the requirements of the law, such devices shall be presumed to have been so placed by the official act or direction of lawful authority, unless the contrary shall be established by competent evidence.
4. Any official traffic-control device placed pursuant to the provisions of the law and purporting to conform to the lawful requirements pertaining to such devices shall be presumed to comply with the requirements of this chapter, unless the contrary shall be established by competent evidence.
5. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 304.361, violation of this section is a class C misdemeanor.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2005–2021 · leading case:
State v. McDonald, 170 S.W.3d 535 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).
State v. McDonald, 170 S.W.3d 535 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 24× “The State alleged that failing to adhere to the speed limit sign on Northwest Missouri State’s campus was a violation of state law pursuant to Section 304.271 1 and, therefore, Officer Cummins was authorized in following McDonald outside of his territorial jurisdiction.”
Ballard v. City of Creve Coeur, 419 S.W.3d 109 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 3× “In their petition, Appellants sought declaratory judgment that the Ordinance conflicts with Sections 304.271 4 and 304.281, Missouri’s statutes governing red light violations, as well as Sections 302.”
Unverferth v. City of Florissant, 419 S.W.3d 76 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).
“See Sections 304.271 and 304.281. A person of reasonable intelligence does not have to guess at what the Ordinance prohibits.”
Erin Thompson & Clarence Bell, Xavior Dydell, A Minor, by & Through His Mother & Next Friend, Amber Dydell, Carissa Wilson & Karlo Ginn, Sr. v. City of St. Joseph, Missouri, 597 S.W.3d 687 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 3× “" Section 304.271, RSMo 2000, as updated through January 21, 2011.”
State v. Ball, 440 S.W.3d 518 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 3× “2011; and the class C misdemeanor of failing to obey a traffic control device, in violation of Section 304.271, RSMo 2000. Appellant was sentenced to concurrent terms of twenty years and five years in the Missouri Department of Corrections and one year, one year, and fifteen…”
Summers v. Hendrickson, No. 4:21-cv-00605 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 2, 2021).
“) Plaintiff seeks to recover based on Defendant’s alleged violation of sections 304.271, 304.281, and 304.017, RSMo.”
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.