Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-118 (2026)
Overtaking and passing on the right
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass upon the right of another vehicle only under the following conditions:
- (1) When the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn;
- (2) Upon a street or highway with unobstructed pavement not occupied by parked vehicles of sufficient width for two (2) or more lines of moving vehicles in each direction; and
- (3) Upon a one-way street, or upon any roadway on which traffic is restricted to one (1) direction of movement, where the roadway is free from obstructions and of sufficient width for two (2) or more lines of moving vehicles.
- (b) The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass another vehicle upon the right only under conditions permitting that movement in safety. In no event shall the movement be made by driving off the pavement or main-traveled portion of the roadway.
- (c) When overtaking or passing upon the right of another motor vehicle pursuant to this section or other law, the person shall not operate the motor vehicle within a bicycle lane as defined in § 55-8-205.
- (d)
- (1) Notwithstanding this section, the driver of a bus operated by or for a publicly owned transit agency may overtake and pass a vehicle upon the right when operating on the shoulder or right-of-way of any highway on the state system of highways, including interstate highways, when authorized by the department of transportation. Except for authorized emergency vehicles, or recovery vehicles, as defined in § 55-8-132(d), when responding to an emergency call received from a law enforcement agency, the operation of a vehicle on the shoulder or right-of-way of a state highway other than a bus authorized by the department is an offense punishable as a Class C misdemeanor.
- (2) The department is authorized to promulgate rules in accordance with the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, compiled in title 4, chapter 5, to effectuate the purposes of subdivision (d)(1), including establishing procedures for authorizing the operation of a bus on the shoulder or right-of-way and regulations for ensuring the safety of passengers on a bus and in vehicles operating on the main traveled way of the adjacent highway or right-of-way, such as establishing a maximum speed limit of a bus, limiting the use of the shoulder or right-of-way during peak traffic periods, and installing signs indicating the shoulder or right-of-way is reserved for exclusive use by a bus.
- (3) As used in this subsection (d), "bus" does not include a school bus.
- (4) The department may take any action to obtain federal, state, or local assistance for any aspect of implementation of a program to allow a bus to utilize the shoulder or right-of-way of a state highway as provided in subdivision (d)(1); provided, that any funds used for the purposes of this subsection (d) shall be specifically appropriated by reference in the general appropriations act.
Amended by 2021 Tenn. Acts, ch. 243, s 1, eff. 4/28/2021.
Amended by 2016 Tenn. Acts, ch. 944, s 2, eff. 7/1/2016.
Amended by 2016 Tenn. Acts, ch. 967, s 1, eff. 4/27/2016.
Acts 1955, ch. 329, § 17; T.C.A., § 59-818.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2022 · leading case: Ludwick v. Doe, 914 S.W.2d 522 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995).
Ludwick v. Doe, 914 S.W.2d 522 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995). “The appellant, plaintiff below, argues that there was proof introduced (a) that the defendant John Doe violated T.C.A. § 55-8-118, the statute pertaining to overtaking a vehicle on the right, and (b) that he committed acts of common law negligence, so as to make a directed…”
State v. Hannah, 259 S.W.3d 716 (Tenn. 2008). “5 Also, the trial court should consider whether other traffic could safely pass the slow-moving automobile in the right lane as provided in Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-8-118 (2004). 6 Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erroneously interpreted Tennessee Code…”
State v. Levitt, 73 S.W.3d 159 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 55-8-118 (1998). The defendant responded by advising the trial court that the statute had been interpreted to allow travel on the shoulder.”
Langford v. Arnold, 707 S.W.2d 521 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985). “T.C.A. § 55-8-118 provides for lawful passing on the right under certain circumstances.”
City of Church Hill v. Roger Elliott (2018). “The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the Municipal Court of Church Hill erred in finding Elliott guilty of a violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-118 and remanded the case for a new trial to determine if Elliott had violated a municipal ordinance of the City of Church Hill.”
Brooks Monypeny v. Chamroeun Kheiv (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015). “Whether the court erred by instructing the jury concerning TCA §55-8-118[, i.e., “Overtaking and passing on right,”] when this statute was not applicable to the facts of this case.”
City of Church Hill v. Roger Elliott (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017). “Elliott guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” of a violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-8-118(b) by “failing to safely pass a stopped vehicle[] at the intersection of Main Street and Central Avenue[.”
John C. Blair v. Robert Sullivan, Jr. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “Consequently, he proposed, and the trial court agreed, to instruct the jury by reading Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-118 , which provides when overtaking on the right is permissible.”
Sandor Turucz v. Betty T. Madewell (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). “” Nothing pertinent would have been added to the charge in this case by the use of the language of the second sentence of Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-118 (b). We find no error in this part of the trial court’s charge.”
City of Church Hill v. Roger Elliott (2017). “Following a bench trial on September 19, 2015, the circuit court issued a one-page order which provided: On December 20, 2015, at approximately 9:55 PM, [the Appellant] violated the provisions of TCA 55-8-118 (b) by failing to safely pass a stopped vehicle, at the intersection…”
Hamilton v. Franklin, Tennessee, City of (M.D. Tenn. 2022). “§ 55-8-118 (b) (“A driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass another vehicle upon the right only under conditions permitting that movement in safety.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-118(a)(2) — 2 cases
Ludwick v. Doe, 914 S.W.2d 522 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995). “The appellant, plaintiff below, argues that there was proof introduced (a) that the defendant John Doe violated T.C.A. § 55-8-118, the statute pertaining to overtaking a vehicle on the right, and (b) that he committed acts of common law negligence, so as to make a directed…”
City of Church Hill v. Roger Elliott (2018). “The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the Municipal Court of Church Hill erred in finding Elliott guilty of a violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-118 and remanded the case for a new trial to determine if Elliott had violated a municipal ordinance of the City of Church Hill.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-118(a)(l) — 1 case
Ludwick v. Doe, 914 S.W.2d 522 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995). “The appellant, plaintiff below, argues that there was proof introduced (a) that the defendant John Doe violated T.C.A. § 55-8-118, the statute pertaining to overtaking a vehicle on the right, and (b) that he committed acts of common law negligence, so as to make a directed…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-118(b) — 3 cases
Ludwick v. Doe, 914 S.W.2d 522 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995). “The appellant, plaintiff below, argues that there was proof introduced (a) that the defendant John Doe violated T.C.A. § 55-8-118, the statute pertaining to overtaking a vehicle on the right, and (b) that he committed acts of common law negligence, so as to make a directed…”
Langford v. Arnold, 707 S.W.2d 521 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985). “T.C.A. § 55-8-118 provides for lawful passing on the right under certain circumstances.”
City of Church Hill v. Roger Elliott (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017). “Elliott guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” of a violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-8-118(b) by “failing to safely pass a stopped vehicle[] at the intersection of Main Street and Central Avenue[.”
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.