Can South Carolina Highway Patrol require a rotation tow truck to drive motorists away from a crash scene?

Plain-English summary

The South Carolina Attorney General was asked whether Highway Patrol officers could require rotation wreckers to give motorists rides after a crash or require motorists to ride with the wrecker.

The opinion read S.C. Reg. § 38-600(F)(2)(a)(1) to include responsible assistance to help the vehicle owner reach a safe location within the standard-tow fee. That duty did not appear to cover a passenger or nonowner driver. A safe location meant somewhere away from the highway shoulder, not necessarily the tow yard or any destination the owner selected, and the assistance could not place an undue burden on the towing company.

Highway Patrol officers likely had authority to require motorists to leave a dangerous highway shoulder under the general no-loitering rule. The AG found no authority, however, allowing an officer to require the motorist to travel in the tow truck or otherwise dictate how the person left.

The opinion noted that the Department of Public Safety was working to amend the regulations and suggested that additional clarity could come through those amendments or legislation.

What this means for you

Rotation tow-truck operators

By joining the Highway Patrol rotation, a wrecker service agreed that its standard-tow fee covered responsible assistance for the vehicle owner to reach a safe location. The opinion limited that obligation by the regulatory language and reasonableness, not by a guaranteed ride to a chosen destination.

Vehicle owners

The regulation covered responsible help reaching safety as part of the standard tow. The opinion did not interpret that as an unconditional right to transportation to the tow yard or another preferred place.

Passengers and nonowner drivers

The AG said the cited regulation did not appear to require the wrecker to transport people who were not the vehicle's owner.

Highway Patrol officers

Officers likely could direct people away from the dangerous roadside, but the opinion found no authority to require a specific ride with the wrecker.

Common questions

Q: Must a rotation wrecker help the vehicle owner get somewhere safe? A: Yes. The opinion read the standard-tow regulation to include responsible assistance for the owner to reach a safe location.

Q: Does that always mean giving the owner a ride in the tow truck? A: No. The opinion described a duty of responsible, reasonable assistance and did not treat it as a mandatory ride to any destination the owner chose.

Q: Must the wrecker transport passengers or a nonowner driver? A: The AG said the regulation did not appear to impose that duty.

Q: Can Highway Patrol force a motorist to ride with the tow truck? A: The opinion found no authority for that requirement. Officers likely could require the person to leave the side of the highway but not dictate the method.

Background and regulatory framework

S.C. Reg. § 38-600(F)(2)(a)(1) defined what a standard tow fee covered for wreckers participating in the Highway Patrol call rotation. Along with response, hookup, and general collision-scene cleanup, it included responsible assistance to help the owner reach a safe location.

The opinion also relied on a 1969 Attorney General opinion for the principle that Highway Patrol officers must act within authority granted by the General Assembly. It identified regulatory amendment or legislation as the routes for adding clarity.

Citations and references

Regulation:

• S.C. Reg. § 38-600(F)(2)(a)(1)

Prior opinion:

• Op. S.C. Att’y Gen., 1969 WL 15114 (Aug. 6, 1969)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/opinion-regarding-tow-truck-services-provided-through-dps-s-regulations/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/media/n03f0ern/bailey-9-3.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

ALAN WILSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

September 3, 2026

The Honorable William H. Bailey, Member
South Carolina House of Representatives
530-D Blatt Building

Columbia, SC 29201

Dear Representative Bailey:

Attorney General Alan Wilson referred your letter to the Opinions section for a response. You seek an opinion regarding wrecker services called to accident scenes by Highway Patrol. You ask whether we are aware of any authority which gives Highway Patrol officers the ability to require wreckers to give rides to motorists after an accident or the ability to require motorists to ride with the wreckers.

Regarding the obligation of wreckers to provide rides to motorists, the answer can be found in S.C. Reg. § 38-600(F)(2)(a)(1). For a standard tow the wrecker’s fee covers “responding to the scene, hooking up the vehicle, performing a general clean up if the call involves responding to a collision scene and providing responsible assistance to the owner to get to a safe location.” Thus, a wrecker service who has volunteered to participate in the Highway Patrol call rotation has agreed to “provid[e] responsible assistance to the owner to get to a safe location.” This regulation does not appear to support requiring the wrecker to transport motorists who are not the owner of the vehicle, such as a passenger or driver other than the owner. Notably, the assistance must include travel to a safe location. This does not necessarily mean the tow yard or any location of the owner’s choosing. Instead, we think a court would likely conclude that this simply means a location other than the side of a highway. Also, the word “reasonable” makes clear that providing this assistance should not cause an undue burden on the tow company.

Regarding the authority of Highway Patrol officers to require a motorist to ride with the wrecker, Highway Patrol officers likely have some authority to require motorists to leave the side of a highway but not to direct how. The side of a highway is an inherently dangerous place. We have the utmost respect for law enforcement and understand that they are often called upon to mediate difficult and dangerous situations; however, as discussed in this opinion from 1969, they must act within the authority granted to them by the General Assembly. Op. S.C. Att’y Gen., 1969 WL 15114 (Aug. 6, 1969). After an accident, motorists are still subject to the general prohibition on loitering on the side of a state highway, but we are not aware of anything which supports the proposition that Highway Patrol officers may require stranded motorists to ride with the wrecker.

Representative William H. Bailey
Page 2
September 3, 2026

We understand from DPS that efforts are underway to amend these regulations, and we would encourage you and the Department to work together to address your concerns and provide additional clarity in those amendments. Alternatively, the scope of the Department’s authority may need to be addressed in legislation.

Sincerely,

David Leggett
Assistant Attorney General

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Robert D. Cook
Solicitor General Emeritus