GA Code § 40-6-70 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 40 - Motor Vehicles and Traffic|Chapter 6 - Uniform Rules of the Road|Article 4 - Right of Way|§ 40-6-70. Right of Way Rule for Vehicles Approaching or Entering Intersection

  When two vehicles approach or enter an intersection from different highways at approximately the same time, the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right of way to the vehicle on the right, provided that when a vehicle approaches or enters an intersection with no stop signs or other traffic-control devices from a highway that terminates at the intersection, the driver of that vehicle shall yield the right of way to the other vehicle, whether the latter vehicle be on such driver's right or left. When two vehicles approach or enter an intersection with a traffic light in unactivated dark mode, the driver of each vehicle shall be required to stop in the same manner as if a stop sign were facing in each direction at the intersection. Drivers shall not be required to stop if the traffic signal is properly signed as a pedestrian hybrid beacon or ramp meter and operating in the unactivated dark mode. When a flashing indication is given, the driver shall stop for the flashing red signal and exhibit caution while passing through a flashing yellow indication.   The right of way rule declared in subsection (a) of this Code section is modified at through highways and otherwise as stated in this chapter.    (Ga. L. 1953, Nov.-Dec. Sess., p. 556, § 72; Ga. L. 1966, p. 183, § 5; Code 1933, § 68A-401, enacted by Ga. L. 1974, p. 633, § 1; Ga. L. 1982, p. 3, § 40; Ga. L. 1990, p. 2048, § 5; Ga. L. 1999, p. 904, § 1; Ga. L. 2010, p. 442, § 5/HB 1174; Ga. L. 2014, p. 851, § 7/HB 774; Ga. L. 2017, p. 720, § 5/HB 328.)    The 2017 amendment,  effective July, 1, 2017, substituted "a traffic light in unactivated dark mode" for "an inoperative traffic light" near the beginning of the second sentence of subsection (a).   Code Commission notes.   - Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1989, the hyphens between the words "right of way" in subsection (b) were deleted.   JUDICIAL DECISIONS   Editor's notes.   - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Code 1933, § 68-303 are included in the annotations for this Code section.   DOT granted summary judgment in personal injury action.    - Trial court properly granted summary judgment to the Georgia Department of Transportation in a personal injury suit alleging the department negligently designed, maintained, and failed to provide proper traffic control devices at an intersection because the undisputed evidence showed that the clearly visible stop signs at the intersection were ignored by one driver, who was the proximate cause of the accident and the injures. Bennett v. Ga. DOT, 318 Ga. App. 369, 734 S.E.2d 77 (2012).    One who has the right-of-way may assume that others will obey the rules of the road absent some factual indicia that such is not the case. Morgan v. Braasch, 214 Ga. App. 82, 446 S.E.2d 746 (1994).   Right of way at uncontrolled intersection.    - Instruction that a person traveling on a subservient street has the burden of yielding when intersecting with a through street at an uncontrolled intersection was a correct statement of law. Smith v. Hiawassee Hdwe. Co., 167 Ga. App. 70, 305 S.E.2d 805 (1983).    Law that person on subservient street must yield to traffic on through street at an uncontrolled intersection is applicable only where motorists approaching an unregulated intersection may discern that one of the roads is a major through street while the other road is subservient. Lee v. Bartusek, 205 Ga. App. 551, 422 S.E.2d 570 (1992).   Section applicable to inoperative traffic light.    - An inoperative traffic light is to be treated as an unmarked intersection for purposes of O.C.G.A. § 40-6-70 and the trial court's refusal to charge the jury accordingly was reversible error. Edmond v. Roberson, 207 Ga. App. 101, 427 S.E.2d 74 (1993).   Jury instruction proper.    - Jury instruction on the duty to yield right-of-way was proper after the evidence indicated that both vehicles involved in an accident approached the intersection at approximately the same time. Cleveland v. Bryant, 236 Ga. App. 459, 512 S.E.2d 360 (1999).   Jury instruction on right of way not proper.    - Because the general right of way rule set forth in O.C.G.A. § 40-6-70, applied when two drivers arrived simultaneously at an intersection controlled by four-way stop signs, the trial court erred in charging the jury that the rule did not apply in such circumstance. Given that the question of which driver had the right of way was central to the determination of negligence, the appellate court could not say that the trial court's erroneous instruction to the jury regarding right of way was harmless. Graham v. Fallick, 322 Ga. App. 525, 745 S.E.2d 747 (2013).    Former Code 1933, § 68-303 applied within the corporate limits. Shipman v. Johnson, 87 Ga. App. 538, 74 S.E.2d 557 (1953) (decided under former Code 1933, § 68-303).   Section applicable when driver on left should apprehend collision.    - Former Code 1933, § 68-303 applied not only after the automobiles arrive at the intersection simultaneously or at practically the same time, but also when, under all the circumstances, including the distances and speeds of the two cars, the driver of the automobile on the left should reasonably apprehend that a collision will occur unless the driver yields the right of way. Laseter v. Clark, 54 Ga. App. 669, 189 S.E. 265 (1936) (decided under former Code 1933, § 68-303).    Rule that at an intersection the driver on the right shall have the right of way is not limited to two vehicles coming to an intersection simultaneously, or practically so, but is applicable to any situation where the distances between the two vehicles, their relative speeds, or any other circumstances show that the driver on the left should reasonably apprehend a collision would occur unless the driver yielded the right of way. Essig v. Cheves, 75 Ga. App. 870, 44 S.E.2d 712 (1947) (decided under former Code 1933, § 68-303).   Section inapplicable when vehicles moving in opposite directions.    - Rule that the operator of a motor vehicle shall give the right of way to an operator approaching from the right on an intersecting highway is intended to avoid collision by automobiles whose proper courses would intersect or converge, and has no application where the vehicles are moving in opposite directions. Hollomon v. Hopson, 45 Ga. App. 762, 166 S.E. 45 (1932) (decided under former Code 1933, § 68-303).   Negligence per se.    - Violation of the provision providing that at the intersection of two highways the driver on the left should give the right of way to the driver on the right is negligence per se. Laseter v. Clark, 54 Ga. App. 669, 189 S.E. 265 (1936) (decided under former Code 1933, § 68-303).    Failure to yield right of way to one entitled to the right of way is negligence per se. Shipman v. Johnson, 87 Ga. App. 538, 74 S.E.2d 557 (1953) (decided under former Code 1933, § 68-303).   Driver of car having right of way must exercise ordinary care.    - Driver of an automobile having the right of way at a highway intersection is not freed from all duty to exercise ordinary care, and the driver may not personally violate a speed statute or ordinance. Laseter v. Clark, 54 Ga. App. 669, 189 S.E. 265 (1936) (decided under former Code 1933, § 68-303).   Drivers' assumption that others will obey rules.    - Driver having right of way may assume that others will obey rule of the road and will yield the right of way to that driver, and the driver has the right to proceed at a reasonable speed even though the driver sees another vehicle approaching. Greene v. Helms, 115 Ga. App. 447, 154 S.E.2d 892 (1967).   Sufficient evidence to find defendant drivers negligent.    - Under an application of the rules of law to the facts, the jury was authorized to find from the evidence adduced upon the trial, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom that the defendant drivers were grossly negligent in causing the plaintiff's injuries. Lawrence v. Hayes, 92 Ga. App. 778, 90 S.E.2d 102 (1955).   Insufficient evidence of guilt.    - Because the defendant was convicted under the wrong code section and because the trial court specifically found that the defendant was not the driver of the vehicle, the defendant's convictions for failure to yield while entering a roadway and causing an automobile accident in violation of O.C.G.A. § 40-6-70(a) were reversed. Stone v. State, 277 Ga. App. 847, 627 S.E.2d 890 (2006).    Cited in Robbins v. Farmers & Merchants Bank, 161 Ga. App. 53, 289 S.E.2d 288 (1982).   RESEARCH REFERENCES   Am. Jur. 2d.   - 7A Am. Jur. 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, § 288.   C.J.S.   - 60 C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, §§ 53, 54, 56. 60A C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, § 846 et seq.   ALR.    - Right of way at street or highway intersections, 37 A.L.R. 493; 47 A.L.R. 595.    Rights and duties at intersection of arterial (or other favored) highway and nonfavored highway, 58 A.L.R. 1197; 81 A.L.R. 185.    Right of way at street or highway intersections as dependent upon, or independent of, care or negligence, 89 A.L.R. 838; 136 A.L.R. 1497.    Right of way as between vehicles as affected by relative distances or time of reaching intersection, 175 A.L.R. 1013.   Right and duty of motorist on through, favored, or arterial street or highway to proceed where lateral view at intersection is obstructed by physical obstacle, 59 A.L.R.2d 1202.   Duty and liability of vehicle drivers approaching intersection of one-way street with other street, 62 A.L.R.2d 275.   Motorist's liability for collision at intersection of ordinary and arterial highways as affected by absence, displacement, or malfunctioning of stop sign or other traffic signal, 74 A.L.R.2d 242.   What is a street or highway intersection within traffic rules, 7 A.L.R.3d 1204.   Automobiles: duty and liability with respect to giving audible signal at intersection, 21 A.L.R.3d 268.