Transportation Executive Summary: The United States Supreme Court Rules on Negligent Hiring Claims
Recently the United States Supreme Court decided a negligent hiring case involving an interpretation of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA). Specifically, the Court decided whether the FAAAA's safety exception permits negligent-hiring claims under state law against brokers that coordinate shipments in the transportation industry. The Court, in a unanimous decision, answered in the affirmative. This decision is of great importance to the transportation industry because it resolves a split among federal circuit courts and provides much needed clarity to the transportation industry.
We have commented on the circuit-split before:
- Transportation Executive Summary: United States Supreme Court Grants Certiorari for FAAAA Negligent Hiring Case, October 19, 2025 (link)
- Transportation Executive Summary: Seventh Circuit Furthers Circuit Split on Preemption of Broker Negligent Hiring Claims, August 1, 2023 (link)
- Transportation Executive Summary: Eleventh Circuit Holds Negligent Brokering Claim Preempted by Federal Law, May 30, 2023 (link)
- Transportation Executive Summary: U.S. Supreme Court Decides Not to Review Negligent Brokering Case, August 12, 2022 (link)
However, the decision appears to not be the answer the transportation industry was expecting.
Facts and Procedural History
This case arose from an accident where the driver of a tractor-trailer hauling a load of plastic pots veered off the road and struck the tractor-trailer of Shawn Montgomery, which was stopped along the shoulder of an Illinois highway. Montgomery sustained severe and permanent injuries, and he sued the driver of the tractor-trailer (Yosniel Varela-Mojena), the carrier (Caribe Transport II, LLC), and the freight broker that arranged delivery of the shipment (C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.). Montgomery alleged, among other things, that C.H. Robinson Worldwide Inc. (“CHR”) was negligent in hiring Varela-Mojena and Caribe Transport because CHR knew or should have known from Caribe Transport’s safety rating that hiring it to transport goods was reasonably likely to result in crashes that would injure others.
The district court entered judgement in favor of CHR holding that (a) the FAAAA expressly preempted Montgomery's negligent-hiring claim against CHR and (b) the claim did not fall within the FAAAA's safety exception. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit-circuit split of authority on the issue. The Supreme Court then reversed the Seventh Circuit’s and the district court’s decisions.
Questions Presented
The FAAAA preempts state laws related to the prices, routes, and services of the trucking industry. 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1). However, the FAAAA’s safety exception provides that the FAAAA's preemption provision “shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.” 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(2)(A). The question presented in this case was whether the FAAAA's safety exception permits negligent-hiring claims against brokers that coordinate shipments in the transportation industry.
Holding and Reasoning
The Court recognized, and neither party disputed, that common-law duties and standards of care form part of a State's authority to regulate safety and that negligent-hiring claims impose a duty of reasonable care in employing a contractor for work carrying a risk of physical harm. The parties disagreed, however, as to whether negligent-hiring claims are “with respect to motor vehicles.”
As the FAAAA does not provide a definition of “with respect to,” the Court used prior precedent interpreting the same phrase and ordinary meaning to interpret the phrase as “concerns.” 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.” 49 U.S.C. § 13102(16). Thus, a claim is “with respect to motor vehicles” if it “concerns” the vehicles used in transportation. Applied to this case, the Court found that requiring CHR to exercise ordinary care in selecting a carrier “concerns” the trucks that transport goods; therefore, Montgomery's negligent-hiring claim fell within the FAAAA's safety exception, which saved it from preemption.
CHR made three counterarguments – all of which the Court rejected.
First, CHR argued that under the Court’s interpretation, everything that Congress preempted would also qualify for the safety exception, which would render the preemption provision meaningless. The Court rejected this argument by pointing out that the safety exception saves only the subset of preempted claims that involve motor vehicle safety. Claims such as how much a carrier may charge or which highways it may traverse would not be saved by the safety exception.
Second, CHR argued that the Court’s interpretation created redundancy because a separate provision of the FAAAA preserves state authority to impose route controls based on the size or weight of the vehicle or the hazardous nature of the cargo, which also relates to safety. The Court rejected this argument because (a) any overlap is created by reference to a State’s regulatory authority over “safety” so redundancy exists regardless of whether the disputed phrase “with respect to motor vehicles” is defined narrowly or broadly and (b) the provisions can be harmonized because a state’s choice to impose route controls or weight limits may serve ends other than safety.
Third, CHR argued that interpreting the safety exception to cover brokers would create an anomaly with subsection (b) of the FAAAA, which preempts state regulation of “intrastate” rates, routes, or services “of any freight forwarder or broker” and does not contain a safety exception. 49 U.S.C. § 14501(b)(1). In effect, the FAAAA would completely preempt state regulation of brokers for intrastate rates, routes, and services while only partially preempting state regulation of brokers for interstate rates, routes, and services. The Court candidly admitted that it is not obvious why Congress included a safety exception in (c) but not in (b). Nonetheless, the Court decided that interpreting the negligent hiring of an unsafe motor carrier whose truck caused injury as anything other than an exercise of the state’s safety regulatory authority with respect to motor vehicles would be “even odder.”
Concurring Opinion
Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Alito, stating that due to contextual considerations of other provisions in the FAAAA, this case was a close call and he warned that the costs of litigation, insurance, and more substantial inquiries into trucking companies will “cascade through the economy and be paid in part by American consumers in the form of higher prices.” Nonetheless, Justice Kavanaugh stated that the overall structure of the safety regime for the trucking industry supported the case’s outcome.
Conclusion
The Court’s decision is binding on all courts in the United States and, thus, negligent-hiring claims against brokers that coordinate shipments in the transportation industry are saved by the FAAAA’s safety exception in all jurisdictions. Of note is that the case does not actually involve state issued legislation or regulations. Instead, the decision lays down the opportunity for patch work decisions from lower state and federal courts which arise from the results of litigation—not regulatory clarity.
For More Information
Contact John F. Fatino for more information at 515-288-6041. Shay A. Slifka assisted in the preparation of these materials.
