In this article 7 sections
Last week we rounded up the bills signed between September 1 and September 27 that matter to people hurt in California. The governor had until September 30 to act on the rest, and he used those last three days to sign more than 300 bills. Most of them deal with housing, wildfire, energy, and other subjects that have nothing to do with an injury claim. A handful change things that do.
Below are the late-September signings we think matter most to injured Californians, each checked against its bill history and chaptered text on the Legislature’s website. Unless we note a later date, each takes effect on January 1, 2027, the default date for bills passed in a regular session. None of them is an urgency measure that took effect right away.
SB 577: A New Limit on Public Entities’ Share of Economic Damages
SB 577 (Chapter 971, signed September 30) is a long bill about claims against public entities, and one change could affect many injury cases.
When more than one party is at fault for an injury, California splits damages into two kinds. Non-economic damages cover pain, suffering, and emotional distress. Under Civil Code section 1431.2, each defendant already pays only its own percentage of those. Economic damages cover medical bills, lost earnings, and other verifiable losses. Until now, defendants could be held jointly liable for them, which generally let an injured person collect the full amount from any one at-fault defendant.
SB 577 amends section 1431.2. In an action filed on or after January 1, 2027 that alleges personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death against a public entity, a public entity defendant’s liability for economic damages becomes several only. It pays its own percentage of fault and no more. The exception: this new rule does not apply if the public entity is found to be more than 15 percent at fault.
Consider a hypothetical. Suppose a driver with minimal insurance crashes into you at an intersection where a city let a dangerous condition persist, and a jury finds the city 10 percent at fault. Under the new rule, the city would generally owe only 10 percent of your economic damages, and the rest would have to come from the driver. If the city were found 20 percent at fault, the old joint-liability rule for economic damages would still apply to it.
SB 577 also changes the rules in other ways that matter in public entity cases:
- Defense costs. Code of Civil Procedure section 1038 already let a defendant in a Government Claims Act case ask the court to order a plaintiff to pay its defense costs if the case was not brought in good faith and with reasonable cause. The bill expands when that can happen. It now includes a demurrer sustained without leave to amend and a motion for judgment on the pleadings. It also bars an attorney who is ordered to pay those costs from passing them on to the client.
- Childhood sexual assault claims. For assaults that occurred before January 1, 2024, the discovery-based deadline in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.11 drops from five years to three years from when the survivor discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, that a psychological injury was caused by the assault. The alternative deadline of 22 years after turning 18 stays the same. Treble damages for a cover-up are no longer available against a public entity. For survivors aged 40 or older who sue a public entity over a pre-2024 assault on or after January 1, 2026, new section 340.12 requires proof by clear and convincing evidence that the entity knew of misconduct and failed to take reasonable steps, and that it negligently discharged a mandatory duty. For plaintiffs 40 or older, certificates of merit must now be filed with the complaint.
The usual first step against a public entity has not changed: a government claim, generally due within six months. We cover that in our post on the six-month government claims rule. Because SB 577’s liability rule turns on when a lawsuit is filed, anyone with a pending or possible claim against a public entity should get advice on timing.
AB 2761: Free Electronic Copies of Crash Reports
AB 2761 (Chapter 964, signed September 30) modernizes how California documents traffic collisions. For injured people, the most useful change is in Vehicle Code section 20012. A request for a printed report can still carry a fee that cannot exceed the actual cost, but an electronic copy of a crash investigation report must be provided at no cost to the requester.
Who can get a report hasn’t changed. The people with a “proper interest” include the drivers involved, any named injured person, vehicle and property owners, people who may face civil liability, and an attorney who declares under penalty of perjury that they represent one of them. Section 20013 also still says a crash investigation report cannot be used as evidence at trial, though it remains a key early document for insurance claims. The bill also requires the CHP to set statewide requirements for electronic crash reporting by January 1, 2030.
SB 1167 and AB 2346: New Rules for E-Bikes and Faster Electric Two-Wheelers
The governor signed two e-bike bills on September 30. Together they draw a sharper line between real e-bikes and faster electric motorcycles that are often sold as if they were e-bikes.
SB 1167 (Chapter 846):
- Labels. Manufacturers and distributors must permanently affix each e-bike’s brand name and manufacturer, importer, or distributor, and all required label information must be readily visible without turning the bike over.
- Crash reports. New Vehicle Code section 21065 requires any incident report a peace officer files for an injury or crash involving an e-bike to include the brand, the manufacturer, importer, or distributor, the class, and the top assisted speed and motor wattage. For a moped or motor-driven cycle, the report must include the information on its certification label. If there is no label, the report has to say so.
- Faster devices. Under amended Vehicle Code section 23135, you may not ride a two- or three-wheeled electric device that can go faster than 20 miles per hour on motor power alone on a highway or public right-of-way unless it fits a vehicle class the Vehicle Code defines and authorizes for that use. That applies even if the device has a slower setting. A peace officer may remove an unauthorized device.
AB 2346 (Chapter 842):
- Sets a 10 mile-per-hour prima facie speed limit on sidewalks (Vehicle Code section 22352.1). A conviction does not add a point to a driver’s record.
- Lets cities and counties set speed limits of 15 or 20 miles per hour on bike paths and multiuse trails, or 10 miles per hour in limited areas with heavy foot traffic or poor sight lines, as long as signs are posted.
- Requires sellers to give buyers written information at or before the sale. That includes the e-bike’s class, maximum speed, and wattage, plus a recommendation that riders under 16 not go faster than 15 miles per hour.
- For e-bikes made, sold, or offered for sale on or after January 1, 2029, requires front and rear lamps, and requires class 2 e-bikes to have a speedometer.
What this means after an e-bike crash
In an injury claim, what the vehicle actually was can matter a great deal. It can affect which rules applied to the rider, whether a seller mislabeled a product, and which insurance may cover the loss. The new reporting rule means the police report should record the e-bike’s label information or note that there wasn’t any. Get a copy, photograph the vehicle and any label, and keep the device if you can. Our bicycle accident practice page explains how we handle these cases.
SB 1246: Robotaxi Emergency Response Rules, Starting in 2028
SB 1246 (Chapter 1021, signed September 30) adds new duties for companies that operate autonomous vehicles. Remote drivers must be located in the United States and hold a valid California license of the right class. Manufacturers must dispatch local incident technicians right away after a crash or other incident, or when an emergency official or 911 dispatcher asks. During a fleetwide failure, they must notify affected local jurisdictions. They must also report response-time and crash-response data to the DMV every quarter, and the DMV must publish summary statistics.
City attorneys and county counsel can sue for civil penalties of up to $10,000 per commercial autonomous vehicle that obstructs an emergency or law enforcement operation for more than 30 minutes after an official requests a technician. The new rules become operative July 1, 2028. They don’t change how fault is decided after a robotaxi crash.
Also Worth Knowing: Cal/OSHA Investigations
AB 2321 (Chapter 936) strengthens Cal/OSHA’s criminal-investigation process. It makes a willful safety violation that causes serious injury, illness, or exposure a public offense. Before, that applied only when the violation caused death or permanent or prolonged impairment. It also requires the division to immediately notify the prosecuting authority of accidents involving a death, a serious injury, illness, or exposure to five or more employees, or a request for prosecution. Workers’ compensation remains the main remedy against an employer, but a Cal/OSHA file can be important evidence.
What Hasn’t Changed
None of these bills changes the basic deadlines. You generally have two years to file a personal injury lawsuit in California, and six months to present most claims to a public entity. The governor’s window to act on this session’s bills has now closed, so this post and our September 28 roundup together cover the September signings we think matter most to injury victims. Many changes don’t apply until 2027 or later, and some depend on when a case is filed, so don’t assume a new law helps or hurts you until someone has checked your dates.
Questions About How a New Law Affects Your Claim?
If you or a family member was hurt and you want to understand how these changes affect your situation, contact Reardon Stodolka for a free consultation at 657.522.7122. You pay nothing unless we recover compensation for you.