Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC
The Court unanimously ruled that a man who lost his leg in a truck accident can sue the transportation broker that arranged the shipment, holding that a federal trucking deregulation law does not wipe out state lawsuits over the negligent hiring of unsafe carriers.
The decision resolves a split among federal appeals courts and establishes that transportation brokers — companies that connect shippers with trucking firms — can face state negligence claims when they knowingly hire carriers with poor safety records.
“Better to live with the mystery than to rewrite the statute.”
The Court declined to resolve a textual oddity in the FAAAA rather than distort the safety exception's plain meaning.
How it got here: A federal trial court dismissed the negligent-hiring claim as preempted by the FAAAA; the Seventh Circuit affirmed; the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to resolve a split among federal appeals courts.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Shawn Montgomery, a truck driver, had his leg amputated after being struck by a Mack truck driven by Yosniel Varela-Mojena, who was hauling plastic pots through Illinois for carrier Caribe Transport II. Transportation broker C.H. Robinson Worldwide had arranged the shipment. Montgomery sued C.H. Robinson, claiming it negligently hired Caribe Transport even though federal safety regulators had already flagged that carrier as deficient in driver qualifications, hours of service, vehicle maintenance, and crash rates.
The question before the Court
After a devastating truck accident, can the injured driver sue the transportation broker that arranged the shipment for negligently hiring an unsafe trucking company — or does a federal law deregulating the trucking industry block that lawsuit?
The Court's answer
Yes — a victim injured in a truck accident can sue the transportation broker that arranged the shipment for negligently hiring a carrier known to have a poor safety record. The Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) broadly preempts state laws related to trucking prices, routes, and services, but the statute carves out an explicit exception preserving state authority to regulate safety "with respect to motor vehicles." The Court held that a negligent-hiring claim against a broker falls squarely within that exception.
The Court reasoned that "with respect to motor vehicles" means "concerns" motor vehicles — and a claim requiring a broker to exercise care in selecting a carrier directly concerns the trucks that will travel the roads. The ruling does not mean every state law escapes preemption: laws about prices, routes, or services with no connection to safety remain blocked. But state negligence claims aimed at making roads safer by holding brokers responsible for knowingly hiring dangerous carriers survive.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
The roughly 28,000 transportation brokers that arrange about a third of all U.S. freight shipments can now face state negligence lawsuits if they hire trucking companies with known safety problems. Victims injured in truck accidents have a new avenue for compensation. Brokers that conduct reasonable carrier vetting and hire reputable companies should still be able to defend successfully against such suits.
What changes now
The case goes back to the lower courts for further proceedings, where Montgomery can now pursue his negligent-hiring claim against C.H. Robinson. The ruling resolves a split among federal appeals courts — the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits had ruled the opposite way — and sets a nationwide standard allowing state negligent-hiring claims against transportation brokers to proceed despite the FAAAA. Brokers that acted reasonably and hired reputable carriers retain the ability to defend against individual suits.
What this does not decide
The Court assumed without deciding that the FAAAA's preemption provision would otherwise cover the negligent-hiring claim; that question remains open. The ruling also does not address whether a separate FAAAA subsection governing purely intrastate broker services contains an implied safety exception, and it does not guarantee liability — brokers who exercised reasonable care can still win.
Concurrences and dissents
How the Justices voted
Majority (1). Justice Barrett (author).
Separate writings (2). Justice Kavanaugh (author of a concurrence), joined by Justice Alito.
Concurrence — Justice Kavanaugh
Justice Kavanaugh agreed with the result but wrote separately to stress that the case was closer than the majority's opinion might imply. He acknowledged two strong points favoring the brokers: Congress mandated insurance for trucking companies but not brokers, and it is anomalous that state tort suits against brokers would be allowed for interstate but not intrastate trips. But he concluded those points were outweighed by the statute's focus on economic — not safety — deregulation, the near-total absence of meaningful federal safety regulation of brokers' carrier selection, and the implausibility that Congress silently exempted brokers from all safety accountability while leaving trucking companies exposed to state tort suits. Read the full concurrence →
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The FAAAA's preemption provision bars states from enforcing any law 'related to a price, route, or service' of a trucking company or broker. The Court assumed — without deciding — that this provision would ordinarily preempt a negligent-hiring claim. The real question was whether the statute's built-in safety exception rescues the claim from that preemption.
- The safety exception states that the preemption provision 'shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.' All parties agreed that state common-law duties — including the negligent-hiring tort, which imposes a duty of care when hiring contractors for work that risks physical harm — count as part of a state's safety regulatory authority.
- That left the phrase 'with respect to motor vehicles' to interpret. Because the FAAAA defines neither 'with respect to' nor 'motor vehicles' in this context, the Court applied ordinary dictionary meaning: 'with respect to' means 'concerns' or 'regards,' following the same reading the Court gave the phrase in its earlier Dan's City Used Cars decision. A 'motor vehicle' under the statute is a truck, trailer, or similar vehicle used on highways for transportation.
- Applying those definitions, a negligent-hiring claim against a broker 'concerns' motor vehicles because it requires the broker to exercise reasonable care in selecting which trucking companies — and therefore which trucks — will travel the roads. The claim's direct focus on carrier safety is inseparable from the trucks those carriers operate.
- The Court rejected C.H. Robinson's argument that this reading would nullify the preemption provision entirely. Many state laws about carrier prices, routes, or services have no connection to safety and remain preempted. The Court also rejected a surplusage argument about neighboring FAAAA provisions, and — faced with a genuine textual puzzle about why a related subsection covering intrastate broker services contains no safety exception — declined to rewrite the statute to resolve the anomaly, choosing instead to follow the plain text of the safety exception.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Dan's City Used Cars, Inc. v. Pelkey (569 U. S. 251)
Reaffirms that 'with respect to' in the FAAAA means 'concerns,' applying that reading to the safety exception.
Reaffirms Columbus v. Ours Garage & Wrecker Service, Inc. (536 U. S. 424)
Reaffirms that the safety exception preserves states' traditional police power over safety, not preempted by the FAAAA.