Missouri Statutes

§ 307.170 — Other equipment of motor vehicles — violations, penalty.

Missouri § 307.170
JurisdictionMissouri
Title XIXMOTOR VEHICLES, WATERCRAFT AND AVIATION
Ch. 307Vehicle Equipment Regulations

This text of Missouri § 307.170 (Other equipment of motor vehicles — violations, penalty.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 307.170 (2026).

Text

1.Signaling devices:  Every motor vehicle shall be equipped with a horn, directed forward, or whistle in good working order, capable of emitting a sound adequate in quantity and volume to give warning of the approach of such vehicle to other users of the highway and to pedestrians.  Such signaling device shall be used for warning purposes only and shall not be used for making any unnecessary noise, and no other sound-producing signaling device shall be used at any time.
2.Muffler cutouts:  Muffler cutouts shall not be used and no vehicle shall be driven in such manner or condition that excessive and unnecessary noises shall be made by its machinery, motor, signaling device, or other parts, or by any improperly loaded cargo.  The motors of all motor vehicles shall be fitted with proper

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Legislative History

(RSMo 1939 § 8387, A.L. 1983 H.B. 539, A.L. 1991 S.B. 292, A.L. 1996 H.B. 1047) Prior revisions: 1929 § 7779; 1919 §§ 7583, 7584; 1909 § 8515 For penalty for violation of this section, 304.570 (1951) Common carrier who leased truck and engaged independent contractor to operate same would be liable for negligence in failing to maintain brakes on such truck as required by this section. Virgil v. Riss & Co. (A.), 241 S.W.2d 96. (1956) Where evidence was sufficient to justify finding that defendant's automobile was not equipped with two sets of brakes as required, defendant could offer proof of legal excuse such as that occurrence without his fault made compliance impossible. Wilson v. Shumate (Mo.), 296 S.W.2d 72. (1958) Where owner employed mechanic to check brakes on truck and told him of defective foot brakes, and mechanic was injured driving the truck, the owner's failure to maintain two sets of brakes was "excusable" or "justifiable". Rice v. Allen (Mo.), 309 S.W.2d 629. (1958) Instruction to the effect that under the evidence the defendants were guilty of negligence as matter of law in failing to equip and maintain two sets of adequate brakes and that if jury found that plaintiff's injuries and damages were direct and proximate result of collision then verdict should be for plaintiff was error as whether brakes were adequate and whether violation of statute was proximate cause of collision were questions of fact for the jury. Beezley v. Spiva (Mo.), 313 S.W.2d 691. (1960) Where the record failed to show that the person operating vehicle did not have sufficient time and sufficient distance between it and the car with which it collided to have used properly working brakes to any saving advantage, the proof of the fact that the car had inadequate brakes was held not sufficient to create negligence per se in damage suit.  O'Neill v. Claypool (Mo.), 341 S.W.2d 129. (1960) Owner or operator of a motor vehicle, who has satisfied a legal obligation to a third person injured as the result of defective brakes in the vehicle, held entitled to recover indemnity from the person responsible for furnishing the defective vehicle. Allied Mutual Casualty Corp. v. General Motors Corp., 279 F.2d 455. (1973) Held that the operator of a vehicle must bear responsibility for its defective brakes. Baker v. Ford Motor Co. (Mo.), 501 S.W.2d 11.

Nearby Sections

15
View on official source ↗

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Missouri § 307.170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/statute/mo/307/307.170.