When Freight Brokers Choose Unsafe Trucking Companies: The Supreme Court’s Decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC
A serious truck crash can raise difficult questions about responsibility. The driver may have caused the collision. The trucking company may have hired or supervised the driver. But what about the freight broker that selected the trucking company in the first place?
That was the issue before the United States Supreme Court in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, a case involving the reach of federal trucking deregulation and the continuing role of state safety law. In a unanimous decision issued on May 14, 2026, the Court held that federal law does not categorically bar state-law negligent hiring claims against freight brokers when the claim concerns motor vehicle safety.
The Crash and the Lawsuit
Shawn Montgomery suffered severe and permanent injuries after his tractor-trailer was struck by a truck driven by Yosniel Varela-Mojena. Varela-Mojena was hauling a load of plastic pots through Illinois for Caribe Transport II, LLC, a motor carrier. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., a freight broker, had arranged the shipment.
Montgomery sued Varela-Mojena, Caribe Transport, C.H. Robinson, and related corporate entities. One of his claims was that C.H. Robinson negligently hired Caribe Transport and Varela-Mojena to transport the goods.
The theory was straightforward: Montgomery alleged Caribe Transport had a “conditional” safety rating from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration when C.H. Robinson selected it. According to the opinion, the alleged safety deficiencies included driver qualification, hours of service, inspection, repair and maintenance, and crash rate issues. Montgomery claimed C.H. Robinson knew, or should have known, choosing that carrier created an unreasonable risk of a crash.
The Legal Question: Federal Preemption or State Safety Law?
C.H. Robinson argued Montgomery’s negligent hiring claim was barred by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, commonly called the FAAAA.
Despite the name, the statute also applies to trucking. The FAAAA generally prevents states from enforcing laws related to a motor carrier’s or broker’s prices, routes, or services in the transportation of property. Congress adopted that rule as part of a broader effort to deregulate the trucking industry economically.
But the FAAAA also contains a safety exception. It says the federal preemption rule “shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.”
That language created the core question in the case: Does a negligent hiring claim against a freight broker count as an exercise of state safety authority “with respect to motor vehicles”?
The district court said no and dismissed the negligent hiring claim against C.H. Robinson as preempted. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court took the case because federal appellate courts were divided on whether these claims could proceed.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court reversed.
Justice Barrett, writing for a unanimous Court, assumed for purposes of the decision the FAAAA’s general preemption provision might otherwise apply. But even if it did, the safety exception saved Montgomery’s negligent hiring claim.
The Court reasoned that common-law tort duties are part of a state’s authority to regulate safety. A negligent hiring claim imposes a duty to use reasonable care when selecting someone to perform work involving a risk of physical harm. The remaining question was whether that kind of claim is “with respect to motor vehicles.”
The Court said yes.
The FAAAA does not define “with respect to,” so the Court gave the phrase its ordinary meaning, which includes “concerning” or “regarding.” A motor vehicle, under the statute, includes a tractor, trailer, or semitrailer used on a highway in transportation. A claim based on a broker’s alleged failure to use reasonable care when selecting a motor carrier to transport goods by truck therefore concerns motor vehicles.
In plain English, the Court held a state can allow injured people to bring negligent hiring claims against freight brokers when the alleged negligence relates to selecting an unsafe carrier whose trucks will be used on the road.
Why the Broker’s Argument Failed
C.H. Robinson warned the Court that reading the safety exception this way would swallow the FAAAA’s general preemption rule. The Court rejected that argument.
The decision does not mean every state-law claim involving a broker survives federal preemption. The safety exception protects only a subset of claims: those involving safety regulation concerning motor vehicles. State laws addressing prices, routes, or services without a safety connection may still be preempted.
C.H. Robinson also argued the Court’s interpretation created statutory overlap or surplusage because the FAAAA separately preserves state authority over route controls, vehicle size and weight limits, hazardous cargo restrictions, and insurance requirements. The Court was not persuaded. It explained the provisions can still be harmonized, and any overlap comes from Congress’s broad reference to state safety authority.
Finally, C.H. Robinson pointed to another part of the statute dealing with intrastate broker regulation, which does not contain the same safety exception. The Court acknowledged the statutory structure was not entirely tidy. But it refused to rewrite the text of the safety exception. As Justice Barrett put it, it was better to live with the statutory “mystery” than to change the words Congress used.
Justice Kavanaugh’s Concurring Opinion
Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Justice Alito, agreed with the Court but wrote separately to explain why he viewed the case as closer than the majority opinion suggested.
He recognized the brokers’ arguments carried weight. Brokers generally do not own the trucks, lease the trucks, or hire the drivers. Trucking companies are usually in the best position to monitor their own drivers and vehicles. He also acknowledged broker liability may increase litigation, insurance costs, and transportation costs.
But Justice Kavanaugh concluded those concerns did not overcome the statutory text and context. In his view, Congress enacted the FAAAA to deregulate the trucking industry economically, not to create a safety-law gap where trucking companies could be sued for accidents but brokers could never face state-law liability for negligently selecting unsafe carriers.
His concurrence also emphasized a practical limit: the decision does not mean brokers will automatically be liable after truck accidents. Plaintiffs still must prove negligence, causation, and damages under applicable state law. Brokers that act reasonably and select reputable carriers may have strong defenses.
What the Decision Means
The decision is important for the trucking, logistics, and freight brokerage industries. It confirms freight brokers are not categorically shielded by federal preemption from state-law negligent hiring claims tied to motor vehicle safety.
For injured people, the ruling preserves a potential path to recovery where a broker allegedly selected an unsafe carrier despite known or knowable safety concerns.
For brokers, the decision is a reminder that carrier selection practices may face scrutiny after a crash. The Court did not create a new federal standard for broker liability, and it did not decide whether C.H. Robinson was actually negligent. It held only that Montgomery’s negligent hiring claim was not barred at the threshold by the FAAAA.
The case now returns to the lower courts for further proceedings. Montgomery still must prove his claim under applicable law. C.H. Robinson may still raise factual and legal defenses. But the Supreme Court has resolved the federal preemption issue: the FAAAA’s safety exception allows state negligent hiring claims against brokers when the claim concerns motor vehicle safety.
Case Summary
Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC was decided by the United States Supreme Court on May 14, 2026, Case No. 24-1238. The Court unanimously reversed the Seventh Circuit and held that the FAAAA does not preempt state-law negligent hiring claims against freight brokers when the claim falls within the statute’s safety exception for state authority “with respect to motor vehicles.”