(a) Upon all roadways of sufficient width, a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway, except as follows:
(1) When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction under the rules governing that movement;
(2) When the right half of a roadway is closed to traffic while under construction or repair;
(3) Upon a roadway divided into three (3) marked lanes for traffic under the rules applicable thereon; or
(4) Upon a roadway designated and signposted for one-way traffic.
(b) Motor vehicles shall not be operated continuously in the left lane of a multilane roadway whenever it impedes the flow of other traffic.
History. Acts 1937, No. 300, § 56; Pope's Dig., § 6714; A.S.A. 1947, § 75-607; Acts 1997, No. 854, § 1.
Case Notes
Evidence of Negligence.
Impeding Traffic.
Instructions.
Jury Questions.
Jury Trial.
A violation of this section, while not conclusive of the issue, may be evidence of negligence on the part of the violator. Kisor v. Tulsa Rendering Co., 113 F. Supp. 10 (W.D. Ark. 1953).
Fact that truck traveled distance of 100 yards on left side of pavement, continued on left shoulder, struck culvert, and overturned without driver having applied brakes or attempted to turn right showed this section had been violated, and this fact was evidence of negligence. Frisby v. Olin Mathieson Chem. Corp., 279 F.2d 939 (8th Cir. 1960).
Police officer had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant's vehicle after he observed that defendant's vehicle was obstructing traffic in the left lane. Sims v. State, 356 Ark. 507, 157 S.W.3d 530 (2004).
Where the only action on the plaintiff's part, which the defendant insisted contributed to the plaintiff's injury, was that he was in the act of passing a parked truck and had not succeeded in getting back on his side of the road when the collision occurred, an instruction that the jury should find for the defendant if the plaintiff was not on his side of the road did not omit the defense of contributory negligence. Standard Materials Corp. v. Johnson, 205 Ark. 562, 169 S.W.2d 590 (1943).
In a wrongful death action brought by the personal representative of the guest passenger of a deceased automobile driver, an instruction that violation of this section by the driver, if established by the evidence, could be considered by the jury in determining whether or not the driver was guilty of willful or wanton misconduct in the operation of the vehicle was properly refused, as it would have led the jury to the erroneous belief that such violation was evidence of willful and wanton misconduct. Shearer v. Newsom, 250 Ark. 33, 463 S.W.2d 642 (1971).
One driving a vehicle had to keep to the right side of the road, and whether this requirement was done or not was a question for the jury in determining the question of negligence. Northwestern Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Rose, 185 Ark. 263, 46 S.W.2d 796 (1932) (decision under prior law).
Appellate court erred in reversing and dismissing case, in which defendant was convicted for driving left of center, for failure to grant a jury trial rather than remanding the case, because: 1) defendant sought reversal and remand; 2) such failure does not require dismissal under the double jeopardy clause; and 3) defendant should have been given a chance to have his case fairly put to a jury. Elmore v. State, 305 Ark. 426, 809 S.W.2d 370 (Ark. 1991).
Cited: Williamson v. Rainwater, 236 Ark. 885, 370 S.W.2d 443 (1963); Smith v. City of Little Rock, 305 Ark. 168, 806 S.W.2d 371 (1991); King v. State, 42 Ark. App. 97, 854 S.W.2d 362 (1993); Hoay v. State, 75 Ark. App. 103, 55 S.W.3d 782 (2001).