(a) Preferential right-of-way at an intersection may be indicated by stop signs or yield signs as authorized by law.
(b) Except when directed to proceed by a police officer or traffic control signal, every driver of a vehicle and every motorman of a streetcar approaching a stop intersection indicated by a stop sign shall stop as required by § 27-51-601, and after having stopped, shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle which has entered the intersection from another highway or which is approaching so closely on the highway as to constitute an immediate hazard. The driver having so yielded may proceed, and the drivers of all other vehicles approaching the intersection shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle so proceeding.
(c) (1) The driver of a vehicle or the motorman of a streetcar approaching a yield sign shall, in obedience to such sign, slow down to a speed reasonable for the existing conditions, or shall stop if necessary as provided in § 27-51-601, and shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian legally crossing the roadway on which he is driving. The driver shall also yield to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another highway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard. A driver having so yielded may proceed, and the drivers of all other vehicles approaching the intersection shall yield to the vehicle so proceeding.
(2) If a driver is involved in a collision with a pedestrian in a crosswalk or a vehicle in the intersection after driving past a yield sign without stopping, the collision shall be deemed prima facie evidence of his failure to yield right-of-way.
History. Acts 1937, No. 300, § 72; Pope's Dig., § 6730; Acts 1959, No. 307, § 27; A.S.A. 1947, § 75-623.
Cross References. Penalty for violation of 1959 amendatory act, § 27-50-305.
Case Notes
Evidence of Negligence.
Instructions.
Right-of-Way.
Through Highways.
Where automobile stopped near the center of four-lane road at intersection with through highway and truck intending to turn right on highway pulled to the right of automobile near the edge of the road and automobile, though its driver's view was obstructed by truck, drove across and was struck by another automobile traveling on through highway which had the right-of-way, driver of truck was not guilty of any negligence; rather, automobile driver was guilty of negligence in violation of this section. Ozark Natural Gas Co. v. Moore, 201 Ark. 283, 144 S.W.2d 35 (1940).
Violation of subsection (b) of this section does not constitute negligence but is only evidence of negligence to be considered by the jury. Bridgforth v. Vandiver, 225 Ark. 702, 284 S.W.2d 623 (1955).
Where instruction does not contain the exact language of this section, but the meaning is essentially the same and the obvious purpose of both the statute and the instruction is to help the less-favored driver to get completely across the intersection without having a wreck, it is not error for trial court to give the instruction. Lawson v. Stephens, 241 Ark. 407, 407 S.W.2d 917 (1966).
Where defendant objected to instruction pertaining to drivers approaching stop sign at intersection and cited statute had been superseded and did not pertain to stop sign situation, objections could not be sustained. Lawson v. Stephens, 241 Ark. 407, 407 S.W.2d 917 (1966).
Where court refused to give instruction which, in essence, would have put a duty on the favored driver on the through highway to keep a lookout and not to assume due care on the part of the unfavored driver and jury was charged to the same effect in two other instructions, the instruction was superfluous and the refusal was not error. Lawson v. Stephens, 241 Ark. 407, 407 S.W.2d 917 (1966).
Person entering intersection first without any negligence is entitled to right-of-way. Menser v. Danner, 219 Ark. 130, 240 S.W.2d 652 (1951).
In order to have a through highway at any particular intersection, there must be erected a stop sign at the entrance of the intersection on the highway approaching the through highway. Watkins v. Bright, 225 Ark. 879, 286 S.W.2d 333 (1956).
Cited: Sander v. Kristof, 349 F. Supp. 103 (W.D. Ark. 1972); Lambert v. Markley, 255 Ark. 851, 503 S.W.2d 162, 79 A.L.R.3d 337 (1973).