Key Takeaways
- The U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC allows injured truck crash victims to pursue negligent hiring claims against freight brokers that knowingly select unsafe trucking companies.
- The ruling closes a major legal loophole that previously allowed brokers to avoid liability under federal preemption arguments, even when carriers had poor FMCSA safety records or histories of violations.
- The decision could significantly improve opportunities for truck accident victims by expanding liability beyond underinsured trucking companies to include large, well-insured transportation brokers.
On May 14, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision (9-0) that will make a real difference in the lives of families devastated by preventable truck crashes. In Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC (No. 24-1238), the Court ruled that transportation brokers can be held accountable under state law when they negligently hire trucking companies with poor safety records to haul goods and cargo. This is one of the most important trucking liability decisions in recent years.
If you or a loved one has been injured by a tractor-trailer, this case matters to you.
What Happened in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC
Shawn Montgomery was injured when his tractor trailer was struck by another tractor trailer driven by Yosniel Varela-Mojena, who veered off the road. The damage was catastrophic; Montgomery sustained severe and permanent injuries including the amputation of his leg. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (the transportation broker) arranged the shipment and hired trucking company Caribe Transport II, LLC (the motor carrier) to transport the load. Caribe hired Mr. Varela-Mojena to operate the truck and complete the shipment. At the time C.H. Robinson hired Caribe Transport II, LLC, the motor carrier had a poor safety record with a Conditional rating from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).
Montgomery filed suit and included a state-law claim alleging negligent-hiring and/or negligent-selection in his Complaint against the broker, alleging that C.H. Robinson knew (or should have known) the motor carrier had a Conditional safety rating for compliance violations involving driver qualifications, hours of service violations, inspection, repair and maintenance of their vehicle and recordable crash rates. Based on the subpar safety record, Montgomery alleged the broker knew (or should have known) the selection of the motor carrier was reasonably likely to result in crashes that would injure others.
The lower courts dismissed the claim against the broker, holding the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA), 49 U.S.C. §14501(c)(1), expressly preempted (prevented) the state-law negligent-hiring claim against the broker. The lower courts also found the negligence claim did not fall under the Act’s “safety exception.”
In plain English: the lower courts held the state negligence claim alleged by Montgomery was blocked by the higher federal law and regulation of the trucking industry, shielding the brokers from liability for their actions of hiring a known unsafe motor carrier.
Many families across the country and here in North Carolina have hit this same wall, the Supreme Court decision in Montgomery effectively removes that barrier.
Why Does This Case Matter?
Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Montgomery, Circuit courts across the nation were divided as to whether the FAAAA’s safety exception allowed injured parties to allege negligent-hiring claims against the brokers directly. The FAAAA broadly preempts (i.e. overrules) our state laws covering the regulation of “prices, routes, or services of motor carriers, brokers, or freight forwarders with respect to the transportation of property and goods.”
There is, however, a motor vehicle safety exception contained in the FAAAA, section §14501(c)(2)(A), which provides that the broad preemption rule “shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.” That exception provides the individual states with the ability to regulate their own safety laws with respect to motor vehicles on the road.
Before Montgomery, Brokers often escaped liability even when they knowingly (or carelessly) selected motor carriers to haul loads across the country that had subpar or poor safety records and ratings with the FMCSA, including records reflecting repeat violations for vehicle maintenance, drivers who routinely drove over their hours, history of revoked insurance or operational authority, and those with high crash rates. The Courts dismissed these negligent-hiring and selection claims early on based on federal preemption grounds under the FAAAA.
The broker could walk away from the case while the injured family was left fighting a small, often intentionally underinsured motor carrier. This left many victims and families with incomplete compensation for devastating injuries, substantial economic losses and lifelong medical needs.
In Montgomery, the brokers argued their role is purely about “services” by arranging loads and matching shippers with motor carriers, stating motor vehicle safety was not really their concern. They argued a negligent-hiring claim attempts to regulate their core “services” and therefore fell under federal preemption. They further argued that because brokers don’t own or operate the trucks themselves, their selection decisions were too far removed from actual motor vehicle safety. Essentially, they were telling the Court “not my truck, not my problem.”
The Supreme Court saw through this. In the opinion written by Justice Barrett, the Court held that negligent-hiring claims at their core do concern motor vehicle safety. The Court reasoned when a broker chooses a carrier, it directly decides which trucks will be used for transporting goods on public roadways. The Court explained it would be at odds with the law to say that the negligent hiring of an unsafe motor carrier, whose truck causes an injury, is not an exercise of a State’s authority to regulate safety “with respect to motor vehicles.”
The Court was clear that common-sense prevailed: if a broker’s decision puts dangerous vehicles on the highway, it concerns motor vehicle safety. If the broker makes the decision to hire a motor carrier with documented safety issues and warning signs, they can be held liable for that decision.
The Trucking Industry Is Regulated for a Reason
Trucks are a necessary part of our economy, but they also carry significant risks of physical harm simply due to their size and weight. The Federal Government has long understood that truck safety is a matter of life and death, with federal laws and regulations in the trucking industry going all the way back to 1935. The current laws through the FAAAA and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) heavily regulate the trucking industry and are vital to ensure motor carriers are minimizing this risk for the safety of their drivers and other vehicles sharing the roadways with them. These safety regulations are designed to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities involving large commercial vehicles.
Extensive data is collected and maintained for all motor carriers in operation and made available for public access through the FMCSA online program Safety Measurement System (SMS). Every month, the motor carrier’s profile is updated with information from the previous 30 days, providing a carrier’s overall risk profile by including historical information such as the current safety rating, violations of the FMCSRs, crash rates, unsafe driving incidents, hours and vehicle maintenance compliance violations, inspection reports, operating authority and insurance coverage. The SMS collects and analyzes the data from the last 24 months to prioritize carriers requiring safety interventions and investigations.
A safety rating is an evaluation of a motor carrier’s compliance with the federal safety fitness standards pursuant to 49 CFR 385.5, conducted to investigate potential violations or complaints about the motor carrier’s activities. After a compliance review, the FMCSA may issue one of three safety ratings: Satisfactory, Conditional or Unsatisfactory. During that investigation, the carrier must demonstrate that they have adequate and effective safety management controls and policies in place to reduce their risk associated with safety fitness standards, such as hiring unqualified or unlicensed drivers, the use of fatigued drivers, permitting the operation of unsafe vehicles, failing to inspect, maintain and repair their vehicles, and protocols for collision prevention.
A “Satisfactory” safety rating means that a motor carrier has functional and adequate safety management controls to meet the safety fitness standard for the size and type of operation of the carrier.
A “Conditional” safety rating means a motor carrier does not have adequate safety management controls or policies in place and are not in full compliance as required by law. Therefore, continued operations of the motor carrier without improvements to their safety systems within 60 days could result in occurrences where the motor carrier fails to meet the safety fitness standards and is likely to cause preventable accidents where someone is harmed.
An “Unsatisfactory” safety rating means a motor carrier does not have adequate safety management controls in place. This rating effectively operates as notice to the motor carrier that the FMCSA has made a preliminary determination that the motor carrier is “unfit” to continue operating commercial motor vehicles in interstate unless safety improvements are made within 45-60 days of the notice.
However, not all investigations result in a safety rating, and not all motor carriers have been assigned a safety rating. If the motor carrier has not received a safety rating, which is common for many reasons, the rating will reflect “Unrated” on their company snapshot page with the FMCSA.
The FMCSA provides this information to the public for transparency and to ensure the industry and carriers are held accountable. Brokers have a duty to reasonably consider this history when vetting carriers for shipment selection. The attorneys with Brown Moore & Associates, PLLC, use the same information in our cases involving negligent motor carriers and brokers.
What Negligent Hiring Looks Like in Real Trucking Cases
A claim alleging negligent hiring (negligent selection) is straightforward: Did the broker exercise reasonable care when selecting the motor carrier that would operate trucks on our roadways?
Today, roughly 28,000 brokers arrange transportation for about a third of all freight shipped in the United States by more than 780,000 motor carriers. Brokers are the intermediaries connecting the shippers and motor carriers. Shippers contract with brokers to ship their goods, the brokers then select the motor carriers to transport the goods. The motor carriers own or lease their trucks and are responsible for maintaining those vehicles and hiring the drivers to operate on the roads. Brokers will need to prove they acted reasonably and arranged transportation with reputable and safe motor carriers if they are presented with a negligent hiring claim.
In real cases, the safety data often involves clear red flags that a broker with access to public FMCSA data should have realized prior to selecting the carrier:
- Hiring a motor carrier with a “conditional” or “unsatisfactory” safety rating due to lack of compliance with federal safety fitness standards.
- Ignoring the history of prior preventable accidents, out-of-service violations, or insurance lapses.
- Choosing the cheapest carrier despite the warning signs, prioritizing speed and cost over safety.
- The Broker also fails to follow their own internal safety policies and guidelines or vetting procedures.
These decisions directly put unsafe trucks and unqualified drivers on the road, leading to catastrophic collisions, fatalities, and other preventable tragedies. The broker’s choice isn’t abstract paperwork for services, it determines exactly which vehicles and drivers share the highway with families in cars, school buses, and other trucks.
Why This is a Very Big Deal
The ruling binds federal courts and strongly guides state courts nationwide. Judges will no longer dismiss these claims on preemption grounds. Cases will now be decided on the facts: Did the broker ignore red flags?
Freight brokers like the one in Montgomery are typically large, well-insured companies. This decision gives injured people and grieving families another viable defendant with real financial resources. It dramatically improves the chances of obtaining full compensation for all harms and losses suffered by those affected. Accountability drives change in the industry. Brokers will now have a strong financial incentive to vet carriers more rigorously and should lead to higher industry-wide safety standards and fewer preventable crashes.
For too long, powerful transportation intermediaries such as brokers operated with reduced accountability, simply because the gray area in the law before Montgomery allowed them to. This opinion reaffirms states like North Carolina can protect their citizens from foreseeable harm by all potential negligent parties.
The Bottom Line
If you or someone you love has been seriously injured or killed by a commercial vehicle, don’t assume the only responsible parties are the driver and the motor carrier whose name is on the truck. Ask: Who brokered the load? What due diligence did they perform? Were there any warning signs they ignored?
Montgomery is a victory for common sense, safety, and accountability. For families facing medical debt, lost income, and unimaginable grief after a truck crash, it means hope for a more complete measure of justice.
The Supreme Court decision gives lawyers’ stronger tools to pursue every responsible party. At Brown Moore & Associates, PLLC, we have always fought hard for our clients. Now, we can fight even more effectively.
If you or a loved one has been affected by a serious truck accident, contact an experienced plaintiff’s attorney like those with Brown Moore & Associates, PLLC.
