307.060. Multiple-beam headlamps — arrangement — violation, penalty. — 1. Except as hereinafter provided, the headlamps or the auxiliary driving lamp or the auxiliary passing lamp or combination thereof on motor vehicles other than motorcycles or motor driven cycles shall be so arranged that the driver may select at will between distributions of light projected to different elevations and such lamps may, in addition, be so arranged that such selection can be made automatically, subject to the following limitations:
(1) There shall be an uppermost distribution of light, or composite beam, so aimed and of such intensity as to reveal persons and vehicles at a distance of at least three hundred and fifty feet ahead for all conditions of loading.
(2) There shall be a lowermost distribution of light, or composite beam so aimed and of sufficient intensity to reveal persons and vehicles at a distance of at least one hundred feet ahead; and on a straight level road under any condition of loading none of the high-intensity portion of the beam shall be directed to strike the eyes of an approaching driver.
2. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 307.120, violation of this section shall be deemed an infraction.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases, 1973–2011 · leading case:
State v. Williams, 334 S.W.3d 177 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).
State v. Williams, 334 S.W.3d 177 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “During the hearing on the State’s motion to reconsider, the circuit court made additional statements suggesting that it was not itself resolving the factual issue of whether the headlight was on, but was instead merely holding that no jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt…”
Jenkins v. Jordan, 593 S.W.2d 236 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 2× “350, RSMo 1969 (now § 307.060, RSMo 1978), subpara-graph (1), requires that on high beam, head *239 lights be “so aimed and of such intensity as to reveal persons and vehicles at a distance of at least three hundred and fifty feet ahead .”
Kindle v. Keene, 676 S.W.2d 82 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 3× “Evidence was received without objection that a 55-foot tractor-trailer would move very slowly from the edge of the intersecting driveway into the plaintiffs path.”
Smiley v. Farmers Ins. Co., 749 S.W.2d 711 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 3× “The blood was 4 feet from the eastern edge of Highway 25. Damage on Mrs.”
Michaud v. Burlingame, 490 S.W.2d 680 (Mo. Ct. App. 1973).
· cites it 3× “” [Contrary to this, § 307.060 RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S., requires that multiple-beam headlamps should be of such intensity as to reveal persons and vehicles ahead at least 350 feet for the uppermost distribution of light and at least 100 feet for the lowermost distribution of light.”
Cmty. Title Co. v. Lieberman Mgmt. Co., 719 F. Supp. 869 (E.D. Mo. 1989).
· cites it 2× “, and Mo.Rev.Stat. § 307.060, Missouri's statutory provisions governing interpleader, in order to determine the manner in which certain funds held by Community Title should be distributed among the defendants.”
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 307.060(2): 2 cases
Kindle v. Keene, 676 S.W.2d 82 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984).
“Evidence was received without objection that a 55-foot tractor-trailer would move very slowly from the edge of the intersecting driveway into the plaintiffs path.”
Smiley v. Farmers Ins. Co., 749 S.W.2d 711 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988).
“The blood was 4 feet from the eastern edge of Highway 25. Damage on Mrs.”
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.