If you have ever changed a flat on the shoulder of the 405, waited behind a tow truck loading a wrecked sedan, or watched a Caltrans crew set cones on a freeway off-ramp, you already know how vulnerable people are when they are stopped on a California roadway. A single distracted driver flying past at 70 miles per hour can turn a routine roadside stop into a catastrophic injury case.
In 2026, California expanded its Move Over and Slow Down law through AB 390, and the change matters far beyond a traffic ticket. For anyone hit while stopped on the roadside, whether a tow operator, a delivery driver, a rideshare driver helping a passenger, or a family with a disabled car, AB 390 gives your injury claim a stronger legal foundation than the prior version of Vehicle Code section 21809 ever did. Here is what the expansion actually does, and how we use it to push back on lowball offers and comparative-fault arguments.
What AB 390 Actually Changes in 2026
Before AB 390, California’s Move Over law required drivers approaching a stationary emergency vehicle, tow truck, or Caltrans vehicle with flashing amber, red, or blue lights to either move into a non-adjacent lane when safe or slow to a reasonable and prudent speed. The rule was real, but it was often narrowly applied, and defense attorneys frequently argued it did not clearly cover ordinary motorists stopped with hazard lights.
The 2026 expansion broadens the duty in two important ways:
- The obligation now clearly extends to a wider category of stopped vehicles, including tow trucks, Caltrans and highway maintenance vehicles, utility vehicles, and, in practical effect, any vehicle stopped with emergency or hazard lights activated on a highway or freeway shoulder.
- The statutory duty is stated in stronger, more explicit terms, which makes it easier to argue negligence per se when a driver blows past a lit-up scene without slowing or changing lanes.
Under California’s negligence per se doctrine, codified in Evidence Code section 669, a driver who violates a safety statute designed to protect a class of people (here, people stopped on the roadside) is presumed negligent when that violation causes the type of harm the statute was meant to prevent. AB 390 fits that framework cleanly. That presumption is one of the most powerful tools we can bring into a settlement negotiation.
Who Benefits Most From the Expanded Law
AB 390 was designed with a specific set of high-risk workers in mind, but its protections reach ordinary motorists too. In our practice, we see roadside injuries fall into a handful of recurring categories:
- Tow truck operators loading a vehicle onto a flatbed on the shoulder
- Caltrans and highway maintenance workers setting cones, patching pavement, or clearing debris
- Utility workers responding to downed lines or damaged equipment near the road
- Rideshare and delivery drivers pulled over to complete a trip, drop off a package, or assist a passenger
- Stranded motorists changing a tire, waiting for a tow, or checking under the hood
- Good Samaritans who stopped to help at a prior crash scene
If you were hit in any of these situations while your vehicle displayed hazard lights, beacons, or a light bar, AB 390 likely applies. That is true whether you were on a freeway shoulder, a state highway, or an urban arterial with a designated stopping area.
How AB 390 Reshapes Fault Arguments and Insurance Negotiations
Insurance adjusters have a familiar playbook for shoulder-side collisions. They argue the injured person “shouldn’t have been stopped there,” that the scene was “confusing,” that the driver who hit them “couldn’t have avoided it,” or that fault should be split under California’s pure comparative negligence rule (Civil Code section 1714). AB 390 makes those arguments considerably harder to sustain.
Here is how we use the new law in real claims:
- Negligence per se. When the police report or physical evidence shows the at-fault driver maintained speed and stayed in the adjacent lane despite active lights on a stopped vehicle, we frame that as a straightforward statutory violation. The adjuster is no longer negotiating over a general duty of care. They are negotiating over a specific safety statute the driver broke.
- Comparative fault reduction. Adjusters often try to assign 20 to 40 percent fault to a roadside worker or stranded motorist for “creating a hazard.” AB 390 flips that framing. The statute exists precisely because stopped vehicles are foreseeable on California roads, and it places the burden on approaching drivers to adjust. That significantly reduces the leverage insurers have to shave down your recovery.
- Aggravated conduct. When a driver not only fails to move over but accelerates through a marked work zone, weaves around cones, or is documented on dashcam blowing past flashing lights at freeway speed, we can argue aggravated negligence. In extreme cases involving intoxication or willful conduct, that opens the door to punitive damages under Civil Code section 3294.
- Uninsured and underinsured motorist claims. Even when the at-fault driver has minimal or no coverage, AB 390 strengthens UM/UIM claims against your own insurer by making liability nearly indisputable, which often shifts the focus of negotiation to damages rather than fault.
Documenting a Roadside Crash the Right Way
Because AB 390 hinges on whether the stopped vehicle was displaying emergency or hazard lights and whether the approaching driver had a reasonable opportunity to move over or slow down, evidence about the scene has become more valuable than ever. John Reardon spent 20 years as a chiropractor before becoming a lawyer, and one thing that background reinforces is how quickly evidence, both medical and physical, disappears after a crash. The steps you take in the first hours matter.
If you are injured on the roadside and you are physically able, or if a coworker or bystander can help, try to capture:
- Photos and video showing the stopped vehicle with hazard lights, beacons, or light bars activated
- The position of cones, flares, arrow boards, or warning triangles
- The angle of approach the at-fault driver had, including sightlines and any obstructions
- The lane configuration, shoulder width, and whether an adjacent lane was open for the driver to move into
- Dashcam footage from the stopped vehicle, nearby vehicles, or tow truck cameras
- Names and phone numbers of witnesses, including other motorists who slowed or moved over correctly
When speaking with the responding CHP officer or local police, describe the facts plainly. Note that your hazard lights or beacons were on, that you were stopped in a designated area, and that the other driver did not move over or slow down. Ask that these details be included in the report. A well-documented report citing AB 390 or Vehicle Code section 21809 is worth its weight in gold during negotiations.
From a medical documentation standpoint, roadside collisions frequently produce high-energy injuries even at moderate impact speeds because the victim is often standing, kneeling, or leaning into a vehicle when struck. Herniated discs, complex fractures, traumatic brain injuries, and crush injuries are common. Get evaluated immediately, follow through with imaging, and do not minimize symptoms to the ER staff. Gaps in treatment and vague early complaints are exactly what insurers use to argue your injuries are not as serious as the medical bills suggest.
Pushing Back When the Insurer Blames You
Even with AB 390 on the books, expect the at-fault driver’s insurer to try familiar defenses. Here is how we respond:
- “You shouldn’t have stopped there.” California law recognizes that vehicles will stop on shoulders and in work zones. AB 390 codifies the duty on approaching drivers. As long as the stop was lawful and hazards were displayed, this argument holds little weight.
- “The driver couldn’t see you in time.” Sightline analysis, dashcam footage, and accident reconstruction typically show that a driver traveling at the posted speed had ample distance to perceive and react to a lit-up scene. If they did not react, that is evidence of inattention, not impossibility.
- “Your lights weren’t on.” This is why photo and video evidence of the scene matters. Tow trucks and Caltrans vehicles almost always have data logs or camera systems that confirm light activation.
- “It was just an unavoidable accident.” After AB 390, the “unavoidable accident” framing is much weaker. The statute presumes these collisions are avoidable if drivers comply with the law.
We also watch carefully for early settlement offers in roadside cases. Insurers know these injuries can escalate, and they often try to close the file quickly before the full medical picture develops. Do not sign a release, give a recorded statement, or accept a check until you understand what your claim is worth under both the economic and non-economic damages framework California allows.
Talk to Us Before You Talk to the Insurance Company
AB 390 is a meaningful step forward for roadside safety and for the injury claims that follow when drivers ignore it. But statutes only help you if they are properly applied to the facts of your case. That takes early investigation, careful documentation, and an advocate who understands both the medicine and the law.
If you or a family member was hit while stopped on a California roadway in 2026, whether you were working, driving for a rideshare or delivery platform, or simply pulled over with car trouble, we would like to hear what happened. Our consultations are free, and you owe us nothing unless we recover for you. Call Reardon Injury Law at (657) 522-7122 and let us walk you through how AB 390 applies to your claim and what your case may truly be worth.