Overview
On May 14, 2026, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that negligent-hiring claims against transportation brokers fall within the safety exception to the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act's (FAAAA) preemption provision and are therefore not preempted by federal law.
Factual Background
Petitioner Shawn Montgomery sustained severe and permanent injuries, including the amputation of his leg, when his tractor-trailer was struck by a Mack Truck driven by respondent Yosniel Varela-Mojena on the shoulder of an Illinois highway. Varela-Mojena was driving a load of plastic pots for respondent Caribe Transport II, LLC, a motor carrier whose transportation had been coordinated by respondent C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., a transportation broker.
Montgomery sued all respondents and alleged, among other claims, that C.H. Robinson negligently hired Caribe Transport and Varela-Mojena. Montgomery claimed that Caribe Transport held a "conditional" safety rating from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), which had found the carrier deficient in the qualification of drivers, hours of service, inspection, repair and maintenance, and recordable crash rate. He alleged that C.H. Robinson knew or should have known that selecting Caribe Transport was reasonably likely to result in crashes injuring others.
Procedural History
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted judgment on the pleadings to C.H. Robinson, holding that the FAAAA expressly preempted Montgomery's negligent-hiring claim and that the claim did not fall within the FAAAA's safety exception. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, relying on its prior precedent in Ye v. Global-Tranz Enterprises, Inc., 74 F.4th 453 (CA7 2023). The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split on whether the FAAAA's safety exception permits negligent-hiring claims against brokers.
The Court’s Analysis
The FAAAA preempts state laws "related to a price, route, or service" of any motor carrier or broker "with respect to the transportation of property." However, the safety exception provides that the preemption provision "shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles."
The Court's reasoning proceeded as follows:
- Common-law duties qualify as state safety regulation. All parties agreed that common-law duties and standards of care form part of a state's authority to regulate safety. Negligent-hiring claims impose a duty of reasonable care in employing a contractor for work carrying a risk of physical harm, per the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 411.
- "With respect to motor vehicles" means "concerns" motor vehicles. Because the FAAAA supplies no definition of "with respect to," the Court gave the phrase its ordinary meaning, "concerning" or "regarding," consistent with Dan's City Used Cars, Inc. v. Pelkey, 569 U.S. 251 (2013). The FAAAA defines "motor vehicle" as "a vehicle, machine, tractor, trailer, or semitrailer propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used on a highway in transportation."
- Montgomery's claim "concerns" motor vehicles. Requiring C.H. Robinson to exercise ordinary care in selecting a carrier "concerns" motor vehicles, most obviously, the trucks that would transport the goods, and thus falls within the safety exception.
C.H. Robinson’s Counterarguments – Rejected
The Court addressed three counterarguments raised by C.H. Robinson and the United States:
The "swallowing the rule" argument. Respondents contended that Montgomery's reading would make the safety exception consume the entire preemption provision. The Court disagreed, noting the safety exception saves only a subset of preempted claims—those involving motor vehicle safety—and many state laws related to carrier prices, routes, and services have no relationship to safety and remain preempted.
The surplusage argument. C.H. Robinson argued that the safety exception would render other carveouts in § 14501(c)(2)(A) redundant. The Court found that surplusage exists regardless of how broadly the disputed phrase is defined, because the overlap stems from the word "safety" itself, and the provisions can be harmonized.
The subsection (b) anomaly. Subsection (b) preempts state regulation of intrastate broker activities without a safety exception, while subsection (c) includes one. Respondents argued this discrepancy counseled against applying the safety exception to brokers. The Court acknowledged the anomaly but concluded: "Better to live with the mystery than to rewrite the statute."
Legal Ramification – From the Plaintiff Perspective
- Brokers are now subject to state tort liability for negligent hiring. The decision definitively establishes that transportation brokers can be held liable under state negligent-hiring claims, closing a liability gap that previously shielded approximately 28,000 brokers who arrange roughly one-third of all U.S. freight. Injured parties now have a viable path to recovery against brokers who select carriers with poor safety records.
- FMCSA safety ratings are a powerful evidentiary tool. Montgomery's claim was built on Caribe Transport's "conditional" safety rating and documented deficiencies. Plaintiffs can now leverage publicly available federal safety data to establish that a broker knew or should have known a selected carrier was unsafe.
- The safety exception is broadly construed. The Court's interpretation of "with respect to motor vehicles" as simply meaning "concerns" motor vehicles sets a low threshold for plaintiffs to bring their claims within the safety exception. Any claim with a nexus to the vehicles used in transportation will likely survive preemption.
- State common-law remedies are preserved. The decision reaffirms that common-law duties and standards of care are integral to states' safety-regulatory authority, reinforcing plaintiffs' ability to pursue traditional negligence claims in the trucking industry.
- Incentive structure favors safer hiring. As amici argued and the concurrence acknowledged, if brokers can be held liable for disregarding poor safety records, they have a strong incentive to do business only with safe and reliable motor carriers, which benefits potential plaintiffs and the public at large.
- Even if a broker selects a “safe” carrier according to FMCSA publicly available data, post-Montgomery verdicts suggest that this may not be enough. A recent $600 million (post-Montgomery) verdict against C.H. Robinson in Dallas County, Texas suggests that merely selecting a carrier with a satisfactory safety rating may not be enough. Ultimately, who determines how much due diligence a broker must perform is the finder of fact. There, the driver had informed both the carrier and C.H. Robinson that he was too sick to continue driving before the crash, yet he continued on. Thus, in a post-Montgomery world, a broker’s duty is a fact-intensive and case-by-case analysis based on the circumstances surrounding the incident.
The following comparison highlights the core arguments each side is likely to raise in negligent-hiring cases against transportation brokers following Montgomery:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Likely Argument | Defense's Likely Argument |
|---|---|---|
| Preemption | The FAAAA's safety exception broadly saves any claim that "concerns" motor vehicles; negligent-hiring claims against brokers are not preempted. | Preemption defenses remain viable for broker-related claims that do not sound in motor vehicle safety (e.g., claims related to pricing or service quality). |
| Duty of Care | Brokers owe a duty of reasonable care in selecting carriers under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 411; this duty is part of the state's inherent safety-regulatory authority. | No federal safety standard governs broker hiring; the FMCSA requires only that brokers select a federally registered carrier, making the contours of the duty undefined and difficult for plaintiffs to establish. |
| Knowledge Notice | Publicly available FMCSA safety ratings and compliance data establish constructive knowledge, a broker "knew or should have known" a carrier was unsafe when it held a rating with documented deficiencies. Further, case specific factual notices of unsafe and documented deficiencies, such as the one in the Dallas County, Texas case against C.H. Robinson, are likely to continue to be indicative of a broker’s duty on a case-by-case basis in selecting its carrier. This will be a question of fact for the jury. | Brokers may not always (or even often) be in a good position to objectively assess the relative safety of different trucking companies; carriers are best positioned to monitor their own trucks and drivers. |
| Causation | The broker's selection of an unsafe carrier was the direct cause of the plaintiff's injuries; but for the broker choosing a carrier with a subpar safety record, the accident would not have occurred. Plaintiffs should anticipate briefing on causation and must be ready to respond to summary judgment motions to get to the finder of fact on this issue. | Proximate cause remains a significant defense; the intervening negligence of the carrier or its driver breaks the causal chain between the broker's hiring decision and the plaintiff's injury. |
| Reasonableness | Reasonableness requires affirmative vetting, reviewing safety ratings, compliance history, and driver qualifications before selecting a carrier; mere registration is insufficient. | Brokers who acted reasonably and arranged transportation with reputable trucking companies should prevail; a broker "is not going to have a problem if it's asking the hard questions of the carrier." |
| Policy Industry Impact | Holding brokers liable incentivizes them to do business only with safe and reliable motor carriers, improving highway safety for all. The cost to the American Public in the form of thousands of preventable injuries and deaths due to the negligence of brokers in the hiring and selection of their carriers outweighs the litigation and insurance costs to multi-million and billion collar corporations. These corporations need to implement more stringent hiring practices and criteria to ensure the safety of America’s roadways and all that use them. | Litigation and insurance costs will cascade through the economy and be borne by American consumers in the form of higher prices; state tort law can be unpredictable even when brokers prevail. |
| Legislative Outlook | The decision preserves traditional state police power over safety, consistent with Congress's intent to pursue economic, not safety, deregulation. | The subsection (b)/(c) anomaly and the Court's own acknowledgment of "legitimate and weighty" broker concerns invite Congress to revisit the statute and potentially limit broker tort exposure. |
More about the author: Attorney Matthew Dowling
For over a decade, Matthew Dowling represented insurance companies and corporations, defending them against plaintiff claims involving high-value trucking, automotive, and product liability disputes.
He brings that inside knowledge to his work at Nicolet Law, where he now represents plaintiffs who are seeking justice after trucking accidents.
If you have been in a trucking accident, reach out to Nicolet Law for a free consultation. Call 1-855-NICOLET or send a message through our online contact form.