The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral arguments in a high-stakes legal battle that could determine whether freight brokers can be held liable for selecting unsafe trucking companies.
The case, Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, centers on the scope of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA). The outcome could reshape the liability landscape for the multibillion-dollar logistics industry and affect the rights of victims injured in commercial truck accidents. A decision is expected by the end of the term in June.
Life-altering collision
The dispute stems from a Dec. 7, 2017, crash on Interstate 70 in Illinois. Missouri truck driver Shawn Montgomery had pulled his truck onto the shoulder for mechanical repairs when he was struck by a tractor-trailer driven by Yosniel Varela-Mojena, a driver for Indiana-based Caribe Transport II. Montgomery suffered permanent disfigurement and the loss of a leg in the collision.
Montgomery filed a state negligence lawsuit against the driver, the carrier, and C.H. Robinson, the freight broker that coordinated the shipment. He alleged that C.H. Robinson was negligent in hiring an unsafe motor carrier.
Legal tug-of-war
C.H. Robinson argues that the FAAAA’s Section 14501(c)(1) preempts such claims because they interfere with a broker’s “price, route, or service.” While a district court initially ruled that the claims fell under a “safety exception” for state regulatory authority over motor vehicles, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision, shielding the broker from the lawsuit.
Before the justices, Montgomery’s counsel argued that the FAAAA was intended to stop states from enacting economic regulations, not to dismantle long-standing, safety-based tort laws.
“Broad preemption could leave victims without remedies and encourage brokers to prioritize profit over public safety by choosing risky carriers,” Montgomery's brief stated.
C.H. Robinson counsel Theodore Boutrous Jr. noted before the court Wednesday that the role of the broker is to match “federally approved carriers with shippers,” adding there is no duty on the part of the broker to ensure they match a load with a safe carrier.
Boutrous contended that the fault of failing to provide a safe driver lies with the fleet and the driver. “The broker doesn't know all that,” Boutrous argued, adding that brokers do not have the ability to control or inspect a motor vehicle. “Brokers aren't safety experts.”
“Brokers don’t know the safety record of the driver. That’s confidential,” added Sopan Joshi, Assistant to the Solicitor General for the Department of Justice.
However, Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested that “brokers could do more” to ensure safer highways.
Plaintiff attorney Paul Clement contended that the state tort system could provide a trucking safety backstop. Clement claimed that 94% of motor vehicles on the road have no federal inspection data, adding that there are numerous platforms available that provide brokers with carrier safety records, enabling them to make better carrier choices.
Industry and government response
Lawyers for C.H. Robinson countered that the plain text of the law expressly preempts state tort claims. They argued the safety exception applies only to regulations with a “direct connection” to the operation of motor vehicles—a category they say excludes brokers, who do not own or operate the trucks themselves.
In a notable turn, the U.S. government filed a brief supporting C.H. Robinson. Federal officials reversed their previous stance on the issue, concluding after a fresh review that a broker’s duty to select carriers does not meet the “direct link” requirement to motor vehicles required by the statute.
