(A) The following rules govern the overtaking and passing of vehicles or trackless trolleys proceeding in the same direction:
(1) The operator of a vehicle or trackless trolley overtaking another vehicle or trackless trolley proceeding in the same direction shall, except as provided in division (A)(3) of this section, signal to the vehicle or trackless trolley to be overtaken, shall pass to the left thereof at a safe distance, and shall not again drive to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle or trackless trolley. When a motor vehicle or trackless trolley overtakes and passes a bicycle or electric bicycle, three feet or greater is considered a safe passing distance.
(2) Except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted, the operator of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle at the latter's audible signal, and the operator shall not increase the speed of the operator's vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle.
(3) The operator of a vehicle or trackless trolley overtaking and passing another vehicle or trackless trolley proceeding in the same direction on a divided highway as defined in section 4511.35 of the Revised Code, a limited access highway as defined in section 5511.02 of the Revised Code, or a highway with four or more traffic lanes, is not required to signal audibly to the vehicle or trackless trolley being overtaken and passed.
(B) Except as otherwise provided in this division, whoever violates this section is guilty of a minor misdemeanor. If, within one year of the offense, the offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to one predicate motor vehicle or traffic offense, whoever violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. If, within one year of the offense, the offender previously has been convicted of two or more predicate motor vehicle or traffic offenses, whoever violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the third degree.
If the offender commits the offense while distracted and the distracting activity is a contributing factor to the commission of the offense, the offender is subject to the additional fine established under section 4511.991 of the Revised Code.
The Legislative Service Commission presents the text of this section as a composite of the section as amended by multiple acts of the General Assembly. This presentation recognizes the principle stated in R.C. 1.52(B) that amendments are to be harmonized if reasonably capable of simultaneous operation.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1954–2024 · leading case: Wilfong v. Batdorf, 451 N.E.2d 1185 (Ohio 1983).
Wilfong v. Batdorf, 451 N.E.2d 1185 (Ohio 1983). · cites it 4דR.C. 4511.27 (A) requires the operator of a vehicle to “* * * signal to the vehicle or trackless trolley to be overtaken * * (Emphasis added.”
State v. Turner (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-6773, 170 N.E.3d 842. · cites it 2ד{¶ 34} R.C. 4511.27 governs the overtaking and passing of vehicles proceeding in the same direction.”
Michigan Millers Mut. Ins. v. Christian, 794 N.E.2d 68 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2003). · cites it 4ד{¶ 25} Based on the testimony and evidence presented, the trial court found that the circumstances did not require the use of an audible signal and that Christian complied with R.C. 4511.27 by using his turn signal to indicate his intention to overtake the sprayer.”
Raymond v. Haught, 143 N.E.2d 731 (Ohio Ct. App. 1956). · cites it 14דDe Pew claims that the court erred in its general charge by stating that the plaintiff claimed De Pew violated Section 4511.27, Revised Code, and that a violation of this section was negligence per se.”
State v. Langenkamp, 739 N.E.2d 404 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2000). · cites it 4דR.C. 4511.27 states: “The following rules govern the overtaking and passing of vehicles or trackless trolleys proceeding in the same direction: “(A) The operator of a vehicle or trackless trolley overtaking another vehicle or trackless trolley proceeding in the same direction…”
Siders v. Reynoldsburg Sch. Dist., 650 N.E.2d 150 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1994). · cites it 3דDefendant asserts that Siders should be found negligent per se for failing to comply with numerous Reynoldsburg city code sections and R.C. 4511.27, a statute dealing with rules for overtaking and passing vehicles.”
State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St. 3d 93 (Ohio 1996). “21(A), a minor misdemeanor; and improper passing, in violation of R.C. 4511.27(A), a minor misdemeanor. The involuntary manslaughter conviction was predicated upon the minor misdemeanor traffic violations.”
State v. Butler, 227 N.E.2d 627 (Ohio 1967). · cites it 2דSection 4511.27, Revised Code. Overtaking and passing.”
Hitchens v. Hahn, 478 N.E.2d 797 (Ohio 1985). “In their propositions of law before this court, appellants contend that appellee was negligent per se as he failed to give a passing signal as required by R.C. 4511.27(A). Appellants argue that the ensuing collision was proximately caused, as a matter of law,, by appellee’s…”
State v. Adams, 2015-Ohio-3786. · cites it 4ד34 and R.C. 4511.27 were the better focal points.”
McCoy v. Gilbert, 169 N.E.2d 624 (Ohio Ct. App. 1959). · cites it 2דAnd it does not appear to us that the charge places any greater burden upon Gilbert in overtaking and passing the tractor-trailer than is imposed by Section 4511.27, Revised Code. Gilbert again urges her sixth assignment of error, claiming that the court should have sustained…”
State v. Goodman, 221 N.E.2d 202 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 1966). “Sections 4511.27 to 4511.31, Revised Code, regulate the overtaking and passing of vehicles traveling in the same direction.”
Michigan Millers Mut. Ins. v. Christian, 794 N.E.2d 68 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2003). “{¶ 25} Based on the testimony and evidence presented, the trial court found that the circumstances did not require the use of an audible signal and that Christian complied with R.C. 4511.27 by using his turn signal to indicate his intention to overtake the sprayer.”
State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St. 3d 93 (Ohio 1996). “21(A), a minor misdemeanor; and improper passing, in violation of R.C. 4511.27(A), a minor misdemeanor. The involuntary manslaughter conviction was predicated upon the minor misdemeanor traffic violations.”
Hitchens v. Hahn, 478 N.E.2d 797 (Ohio 1985). “In their propositions of law before this court, appellants contend that appellee was negligent per se as he failed to give a passing signal as required by R.C. 4511.27(A). Appellants argue that the ensuing collision was proximately caused, as a matter of law,, by appellee’s…”
State v. Szefcyk, 661 N.E.2d 233 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 1995).
Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.27(A)(1): 1 case
State v. Adams, 2015-Ohio-3786. “34 and R.C. 4511.27 were the better focal points.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.27(A)(3): 1 case
State v. Adams, 2015-Ohio-3786. “34 and R.C. 4511.27 were the better focal points.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.27(B): 3 cases
Michigan Millers Mut. Ins. v. Christian, 794 N.E.2d 68 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2003). “{¶ 25} Based on the testimony and evidence presented, the trial court found that the circumstances did not require the use of an audible signal and that Christian complied with R.C. 4511.27 by using his turn signal to indicate his intention to overtake the sprayer.”
Siders v. Reynoldsburg Sch. Dist., 650 N.E.2d 150 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1994). “Defendant asserts that Siders should be found negligent per se for failing to comply with numerous Reynoldsburg city code sections and R.C. 4511.27, a statute dealing with rules for overtaking and passing vehicles.”
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.