Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 346.67 (2026)
Duty upon striking person or attended or occupied vehicle
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
346.67(1)(1) The operator of a vehicle involved in an accident shall reasonably investigate what was struck and if the operator knows or has reason to know that the accident resulted in injury or death of a person or in damage to a vehicle that is driven or attended by a person, the operator shall stop the vehicle he or she is operating as close to the scene of the accident as possible and remain at the scene of the accident until the operator has done all of the following:
346.67(1)(a)(a) The operator shall give his or her name, address and the registration number of the vehicle he or she is driving to the person struck or to the operator or occupant of or person attending any vehicle collided with; and
346.67(1)(b)(b) The operator shall, upon request and if available, exhibit his or her operator’s license to the person struck or to the operator or occupant of or person attending any vehicle collided with; and
346.67(1)(c)(c) The operator shall render reasonable assistance to any person injured in the accident, including transporting, or making arrangements to transport the person to a physician, surgeon, or hospital for medical or surgical treatment if it is apparent that medical or surgical treatment is necessary or if requested by the injured person.
346.67(2)(2) Any stop required under sub. (1) shall be made without obstructing traffic more than is necessary.
346.67(3)(3) A prosecutor is not required to allege or prove that an operator knew that he or she collided with a person or a vehicle driven or attended by a person in a prosecution under this section.
346.67 AnnotationViolation of this section is a felony. State ex rel. McDonald v. Circuit Court, 100 Wis. 2d 569, 302 N.W.2d 462 (1981).
346.67 AnnotationDiscussing the elements of the duty under this section. State v. Lloyd, 104 Wis. 2d 49, 310 N.W.2d 617 (Ct. App. 1981).
346.67 AnnotationA “person injured” in sub. (1) (c) includes a person who is fatally injured. A subsequent determination of instantaneous death does not absolve a person of the duty to investigate whether assistance is possible. State v. Swatek, 178 Wis. 2d 1, 502 N.W.2d 909 (Ct. App. 1993).
346.67 Annotation“Accident” in sub. (1) means an unexpected, undesirable event and may encompass intentional conduct. By including intentional conduct within the definition, the reporting requirements do not infringe on the 5th amendment privilege against self-incrimination. State v. Harmon, 2006 WI App 214, 296 Wis. 2d 861, 723 N.W.2d 732, 05-2480.
346.67 Annotation“Accident” in the context of sub. (1) includes, at a minimum, the operator’s loss of control of the vehicle that results in a collision. Because the defendant’s loss of control of the vehicle occurred on the highway, even though the resulting collision occurred off the highway, the defendant was “involved in an accident” “upon a highway” within the meaning of sub. (1) and s. 346.02 (1). State v. Dartez, 2007 WI App 126, 301 Wis. 2d 499, 731 N.W.2d 340, 06-1845.
346.67 AnnotationSub. (1) requires an operator of a vehicle to identify him or herself as the operator of the vehicle. State v. Wuteska, 2007 WI App 157, 303 Wis. 2d 646, 735 N.W.2d 574, 06-2248.
346.67 AnnotationGiven the general rule that “where the crime is against persons rather than property, there are as many offenses as individuals affected” and the statute’s clear imposition of duties with regard to each of the victims at an accident scene, it is reasonable to presume that the legislature authorized multiple punishments under sub. (1). The defendant owed a distinct set of duties under sub. (1) to each of the two victims at the accident scene that the defendant fled. Although stopping one’s vehicle at the scene of the accident is one obligation that sub. (1) imposes, that requirement is manifestly in service of the statute’s true focus: the operator’s obligation to remain at the scene of the accident until the operator has fulfilled each of the enumerated statutory obligations owed to specified persons at the scene. State v. Pal, 2017 WI 44, 374 Wis. 2d 759, 893 N.W.2d 848, 15-1782.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 47
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: State v. Sambath Pal, 2017 WI 44 (Wis. 2017).
State v. Sambath Pal, 2017 WI 44 (Wis. 2017). “He eventually pleaded guilty to two counts of hit and run resulting in death, in violation of Wis. Stat. § 346.67 (1) (2013-14).2 The circuit court sentenced Pal to ten years of initial confinement and ten years of extended supervision for each count, with the term of…”
State v. Harmon, 2006 WI App 214 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). “Harmon appeals a judgment of conviction for violating Wisconsin's "hit- and-run" statute, Wis. Stat. § 346.67 (1). 1 Harmon contends the circuit court erroneously instructed the jury on the meaning of the word "accident" by not limiting the definition to unintentional acts.”
Progressive N. Ins. Co. v. Romanshek, 2005 WI 67 (Wis. 2005). “" Section 346.67, Stats. (Emphasis added.) Section 346.”
Zarder Ex Rel. Menard v. Humana Ins., 2010 WI 35 (Wis. 2010). “However, it found the criminal hit-and-run statute, Wis. Stat. § 346.67 , to be helpful. 7 Id.”
State Ex Rel. McDonald v. Circuit Court for Douglas Cnty., 302 N.W.2d 462 (Wis. 1981). “Moodie, the Douglas county district attorney, and the state attorney general from conducting a preliminary examination in the prosecution of a violation of sec. 346.67, Stats. [1] The court of appeals *571 concluded that, because a violation of sec.”
Hayne v. Progressive N. Ins., 339 N.W.2d 588 (Wis. 1983). “[5] Although the term "hit-and run" is not used in sec. 346.67, Stats., this court has previously described the offense resulting from a violation of that provision as a "hit-and-run offense.”
State v. Michael R. Tullberg, 2014 WI 134 (Wis. 2014). “14 Contrary to Wis. Stat. § 346.67 (1). 9 No. 2012AP1593-CR an amended information that included the six charges in the information and added two counts of operating with prohibited alcohol concentration causing injury15 and one count of failure to aid a victim or report a crime.”
DeHart v. Wisconsin Mut. Ins., 2007 WI 91 (Wis. 2007). “(quoting Wis. Stat. § 346.67 (1981-82)). We quoted § 346.”
Zarder v. Humana Ins., 2009 WI App 34 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009). “§ 346.67, and (3) the principle of construing statutes to avoid surplusage.”
State v. Mann, 367 N.W.2d 209 (Wis. 1985). “1 Sec. 346.67, Stats., provides as follows: “346.”
State v. Swatek, 502 N.W.2d 909 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993). “The state counters that the duty to render "reasonable assistance" must be examined under the circumstances existing at the time of the accident and that whether McClaren's death was instantaneous begs the question.”
State v. Lohmeier, 556 N.W.2d 90 (Wis. 1996). “§§ 346.67, 346.74(5). A jury trial was held November 1 through November 4, 1993.”
— Wis. Stat. § 346.67(1) — 25 cases
State v. Sambath Pal, 2017 WI 44 (Wis. 2017). “He eventually pleaded guilty to two counts of hit and run resulting in death, in violation of Wis. Stat. § 346.67 (1) (2013-14).2 The circuit court sentenced Pal to ten years of initial confinement and ten years of extended supervision for each count, with the term of…”
State v. Harmon, 2006 WI App 214 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). “Harmon appeals a judgment of conviction for violating Wisconsin's "hit- and-run" statute, Wis. Stat. § 346.67 (1). 1 Harmon contends the circuit court erroneously instructed the jury on the meaning of the word "accident" by not limiting the definition to unintentional acts.”
State v. Mann, 367 N.W.2d 209 (Wis. 1985). “1 Sec. 346.67, Stats., provides as follows: “346.”
Hayne v. Progressive N. Ins., 339 N.W.2d 588 (Wis. 1983). “[5] Although the term "hit-and run" is not used in sec. 346.67, Stats., this court has previously described the offense resulting from a violation of that provision as a "hit-and-run offense.”
State v. Swatek, 502 N.W.2d 909 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993). “The state counters that the duty to render "reasonable assistance" must be examined under the circumstances existing at the time of the accident and that whether McClaren's death was instantaneous begs the question.”
— Wis. Stat. § 346.67(1)(a) — 2 cases
Progressive N. Ins. Co. v. Romanshek, 2005 WI 67 (Wis. 2005). “" Section 346.67, Stats. (Emphasis added.) Section 346.”
DeHart v. Wisconsin Mut. Ins., 2007 WI 91 (Wis. 2007). “(quoting Wis. Stat. § 346.67 (1981-82)). We quoted § 346.”
— Wis. Stat. § 346.67(a) — 1 case
Zarder v. Humana Ins., 2009 WI App 34 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009). “§ 346.67, and (3) the principle of construing statutes to avoid surplusage.”
— Wis. Stat. § 346.67(l)(a) — 3 cases
Progressive N. Ins. Co. v. Romanshek, 2005 WI 67 (Wis. 2005). “" Section 346.67, Stats. (Emphasis added.) Section 346.”
DeHart v. Wisconsin Mut. Ins., 2007 WI 91 (Wis. 2007). “(quoting Wis. Stat. § 346.67 (1981-82)). We quoted § 346.”
State v. Wuteska, 2007 WI App 157 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007).
— Wis. Stat. § 346.67(l)(c) — 2 cases
State v. Swatek, 502 N.W.2d 909 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993). “The state counters that the duty to render "reasonable assistance" must be examined under the circumstances existing at the time of the accident and that whether McClaren's death was instantaneous begs the question.”
State v. Yoder, 546 N.W.2d 575 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996).
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.