Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 346.46 (2026)
Vehicles to stop at stop signs and school crossings
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
346.46(1)(1) Except when directed to proceed by a traffic officer or traffic control signal, every operator of a vehicle approaching an official stop sign at an intersection shall cause such vehicle to stop before entering the intersection and shall yield the right-of-way to other vehicles which have entered or are approaching the intersection upon a highway which is not controlled by an official stop sign or traffic signal.
346.46(2)(a)(a) If there is a clearly marked stop line, the operator shall stop the vehicle immediately before crossing such line.
346.46(2)(b)(b) If there is no clearly marked stop line, the operator shall stop the vehicle immediately before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection.
346.46(2)(c)(c) If there is neither a clearly marked stop line nor a marked or unmarked crosswalk at the intersection or if the operator cannot efficiently observe traffic on the intersecting roadway from the stop made at the stop line or crosswalk, the operator shall, before entering the intersection, stop the vehicle at such point as will enable the operator to efficiently observe the traffic on the intersecting roadway.
346.46(2m)(2m) Every operator of a motor vehicle approaching a school crossing which is controlled by an adult school crossing guard appointed under s. 120.13 (31) or 349.215 shall follow the directions of the school crossing guard. If directed by the school crossing guard to stop, the operator shall stop the vehicle not less than 10 feet nor more than 30 feet from the school crossing and shall remain stopped until the school crossing guard directs the operator to proceed.
346.46(3)(3) Every operator of a vehicle approaching an official stop sign at a railroad crossing shall, before proceeding on or over such crossing, stop the vehicle immediately before crossing a clearly marked stop line. If there is no clearly marked stop line, the operator shall stop the vehicle not less than 15 nor more than 50 feet from the nearest rail.
346.46(4)(a)(a) Every operator of a vehicle approaching an official stop sign or official temporary stop sign erected mid-block on or in the roadway by local authorities under s. 349.07 (6) shall cause such vehicle to stop not less than 10 nor more than 30 feet from such official sign except when directed to proceed by a traffic officer.
346.46 HistoryHistory: 1977 c. 116 s. 16; 1979 c. 344; 1985 a. 29 s. 3202 (43); 1987 a. 25; 1989 a. 359; 1991 a. 316; 2009 a. 65.
346.46 AnnotationA violation of sub. (1) constitutes negligence per se, but a violation may be excused through the application of the emergency doctrine, which provides that a person faced with an emergency that the person did not create is not negligent for failing to avoid the threatened disaster if compelled to act instantly. Totsky v. Riteway Bus Service, Inc., 2000 WI 29, 233 Wis. 2d 371, 607 N.W.2d 637, 97-0530.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1962–2022 · leading case: Totsky v. Riteway Bus Serv., Inc., 2000 WI 29 (Wis. 2000).
Totsky v. Riteway Bus Serv., Inc., 2000 WI 29 (Wis. 2000). “It apparently accepted the emergency doctrine in finding no negligence in the *380 actions of the bus driver, Sharon Y.”
Totsky v. Riteway Bus Serv., Inc., 584 N.W.2d 188 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). “First, the circuit court erred in concluding that Williams's violation of § 346.46, STATS., necessarily constituted negligence per se.”
Baker v. Herman Mut. Ins., 117 N.W.2d 725 (Wis. 1962). “(2) (c) of sec. 346.46, Stats. 1959, 1 did not require that the stop for an arterial stop sign be made opposite such sign when, as here, there was no marked, crosswalk, but only before entering the intersection.”
State v. Travis R. Braly (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “46 was adopted by the circuit court, and the State makes no contrary arguments on appeal.”
Est. of Emilly Zhu v. Brian J. Hodgson (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “§§ 346.46 and 346.24(2). ¶61 WISCONSIN STAT.”
Schlueter v. Grady, 123 N.W.2d 458 (Wis. 1963). “As a separate defense on the merits, they alleged that the collision was caused entirely by the negligence of the plaintiff in the following respects: Lookout, management and control, failing to bring her vehicle to a complete stop before entering an arterial highway in…”
State v. Jacqueline A. Ziriax Anderson (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “§ 346.46(1), in turn, provides that after stopping at a stop sign a driver must yield the right-of-way to other vehicles that have entered or are approaching the intersection.”
— Wis. Stat. § 346.46(1) — 5 cases
Totsky v. Riteway Bus Serv., Inc., 2000 WI 29 (Wis. 2000). “It apparently accepted the emergency doctrine in finding no negligence in the *380 actions of the bus driver, Sharon Y.”
Totsky v. Riteway Bus Serv., Inc., 584 N.W.2d 188 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). “First, the circuit court erred in concluding that Williams's violation of § 346.46, STATS., necessarily constituted negligence per se.”
State v. Travis R. Braly (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “46 was adopted by the circuit court, and the State makes no contrary arguments on appeal.”
Est. of Emilly Zhu v. Brian J. Hodgson (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “§§ 346.46 and 346.24(2). ¶61 WISCONSIN STAT.”
State v. Jacqueline A. Ziriax Anderson (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “§ 346.46(1), in turn, provides that after stopping at a stop sign a driver must yield the right-of-way to other vehicles that have entered or are approaching the intersection.”
— Wis. Stat. § 346.46(2)(c) — 2 cases
Est. of Emilly Zhu v. Brian J. Hodgson (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “§§ 346.46 and 346.24(2). ¶61 WISCONSIN STAT.”
State v. Travis R. Braly (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “46 was adopted by the circuit court, and the State makes no contrary arguments on appeal.”
— Wis. Stat. § 346.46(l) — 1 case
Totsky v. Riteway Bus Serv., Inc., 2000 WI 29 (Wis. 2000). “It apparently accepted the emergency doctrine in finding no negligence in the *380 actions of the bus driver, Sharon Y.”
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.