U.S. Traveler Safety: A Consideration of Freight Broker Liability in the Upcoming Supreme Court case Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC

by Jack Frischen, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review Vol. 94

I. Introduction

The liability of freight brokers brought on by the negligence of their chosen motor carriers has created a split among circuit courts across the country. In the upcoming United States Supreme Court case, Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, on appeal from the Seventh Circuit, the Court will determine whether these freight brokers can be held liable under state negligence laws, correcting the circuit split that has plagued the nation.¹ The inconsistencies in the legal standards across states have created uncertainty for both freight brokers and the injured parties who wish to bring negligence claims against them.² In Montgomery, the Seventh Circuit held that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (“FAA Authorization Act”) preempted state law negligence claims against freight brokers for motor carrier’s or their hired driver’s negligence.³ While the Montgomery Court seemed to gloss over the essential question of whether Montgomery’s claim falls under the “safety exception” of the FAA Authorization Act, the Eleventh Circuit did consider this exception and came to the same conclusion.⁴ The Sixth and Ninth Circuits diverged from these holdings finding that “where a negligent hiring claim against a broker substantively concerns motor vehicles and motor vehicle safety, that claim is within ‘the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.’”⁵ These cases express the continued tension between the interests of business and the interests of the parties injured by their negligence.

This Article discusses the implications of the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision in Montgomery and how it will affect both injured parties and freight brokers. Part II provides background on the circuit court cases that have answered the question concerning freight broker liability and how they came to the holdings they did. In addition, Part II provides further background on the state of the freight industry in the U.S., considering both its necessity as well as its carnage. Part III discusses how both the language of the FAA Authorization Act as well as public policy concerning roadway safety directly support the holding that state common law negligence claims fall under the “safety exception” of the FAA Authorization Act and are consequently not preempted by federal law. Finally, Part IV concludes by recapitulating the overall argument of this Article, that the Supreme Court should not allow business interests to outweigh the lives of travelers on U.S. roadways and the FAA Authorization Act’s safety exception was added with this in mind.

II. Background

There is no denying that the freight industry is an essential part of the supply chain in the United States. Responsible for transporting the nation’s food, water, oil, and other essential commodities, the American economy relies on freight brokers, motor carriers, and drivers for the safe transportation of almost everything. On the other hand, freight brokers and their hired carriers make significant revenue by traveling on the U.S. roadways. In 2024, C.H. Robinson, the freight broker in Montgomery and the Ninth Circuit case Miller v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., reported $18 billion dollars in revenue in 2024 alone, while managing $23 billion dollars in freight.⁶ This Section first examines the circuit split concerning freight broker’s liability for the negligence of the motor carriers they hire, focusing on Montgomery and its Sixth Circuit split in the matter of Cox v. Total Quality Logistics, Inc. Then, this Section discusses the necessity of the freight industry and the harm it causes U.S. travelers as it relates to personal injury and death.

A. Breakdown of the Circuit Split

In the case of Montgomery, a Caribe Transport II, LLC (“Caribe”) employee was hauling his load through Illinois when he veered off the road, striking Shawn Montgomery’s tractor-trailer that was stopped on the side.⁷ C.H. Robinson brokered the shipment pursuant to a standing agreement between itself and Caribe.⁸ Montgomery then brought suit against the driver, the motor carrier, and the broker, C.H. Robinson, in federal court under diversity jurisdiction to recover for the injuries he sustained in the crash.⁹ Montgomery alleged, among other things, that C.H. Robinson negligently hired Caribe and its driver and was vicariously liable for Caribe and the driver’s torts.¹⁰ The Seventh Circuit ultimately affirmed, relying on prior circuit precedent, the lower courts holding that the FAA Authorization Act “bars state law claims against freight brokers for the negligent hiring of motor carriers and their drivers.”¹¹ The relevant language of the FAA Authorization Act reads:

“[e]xcept as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), a State… may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to price, route, or service of any motor carrier… or any motor private carrier, broker, or freight forwarder with respect to the transportation of property.”¹²

This language, referred to as the “preemption provision,” prohibited Montgomery from recovering from C.H. Robinson, leaving him only Caribe and its driver as the potentially liable parties.¹³

The Sixth Circuit later tackled the same issue and came to the opposite conclusion. In Cox, Total Quality Logistics (“TQL”) brokered an agreement for a third-party carrier, Golden Transit Inc., to transport a load of goods from Illinois to California for Kraft Heinz.¹⁴ Greta Cox, and her grandson Robert, were traveling across the country at the same time when the defendant driver, acting on behalf of Golden Transit, struck the rear of their vehicle, tragically killing Greta and injuring Robert.¹⁵ In selecting Golden Transit, TQL ignored publicly available information, via the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (“FMCSA”), revealing that Golden Transit was an unsafe motor carrier that had a history of roadway safety violations and deficiencies.¹⁶ The same safety information provided that “an ‘overwhelming number of [Golden Transit’s] drivers [were] deemed illegal to be on the road,’ and ‘more than 7 out of every 10 of its trucks were not allowed to legally be on the roadway.’”¹⁷ Greta’s husband sued TQL for negligence under Ohio state law, claiming that TQL, in its capacity as a freight broker, negligently hired an unsafe motor carrier, resulting in the death of his wife and injuries to his grandson.¹⁸

The district court concluded that the preemption provision encompasses state law negligence claims, which Mr. Cox did not contest.¹⁹ However, he did argue that the FAA Authorization Act’s safety exception saved his claim from preemption.²⁰ This exception provides that the preemption provision “shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles, the authority of a State to impose highway route controls or limitations based on the size or weight of the motor vehicle or the hazardous nature of the cargo…”²¹ In its opinion, the Sixth Circuit considered the Seventh and Eleventh Circuit decisions, and found that the source of the circuit dispute centered around whether negligent hiring claims were “with respect to motor vehicles,” with those courts taking the narrow holding that “Congress intended claims concerning brokers to be outside the scope of the safety exception.”²² Looking at the plain language of the FAA Authorization Act, the Sixth Circuit split from the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits, holding that common law negligence claims that substantively concern motor vehicles and motor safety, such as this one, were within “the safety regulatory authority of a state with respect to motor vehicles,” and were not preempted by FAA Authorization Act.²³ The Ninth Circuit came to the same holding finding that “negligence claims against brokers, to the extent that they arise out of motor vehicle accidents, have the requisite ‘connection with’ motor vehicles” and therefore the safety exception applies to the claim against C.H. Robinson.²⁴

B. Necessity of the Freight Industry and Brokers

Without the freight industry, the U.S. and world economy would not be able to survive. Truck drivers, motor carriers, and the brokers that furnish their customers are all an essential part of keeping people fed, housed, safe, and secure. Transportation alone makes up more than ten percent of the total U.S. economy.²⁵ Consider too that not only does the freight industry move goods from start to finish, but also between every critical step along way. For instance, from growing wheat, to storing it, to packaging it, and then distributing it involves the use of the freight industry to transport the new product between locations.²⁶ The demand for freight is only predicted to grow; by 2050, the U.S. Department of Transportation (“U.S. DOT”) expects U.S. freight activity to increase by 50 percent in tonnage.²⁷ By the same time, trucking is predicted to make up 65 percent of the total freight tonnage share between rail, water, air, pipeline, mail, and others.²⁸ Summarizing this expected growth, the U.S. DOT succinctly stated that “trucks represent the predominant freight carrier model now and are expected to remain so in the future.”²⁹ It is simple, the world needs freight transportation, and the number of tractor trailers driving on the U.S. roadways is only expected to grow. Ignoring this reality will do nothing to make the industry and roadways safer.

C. Harm Caused by the Freight Industry and Their Brokers

The other side of the issue is clear as well, freight brokers, motor carriers, and their drivers all directly profit off of the use of American roadways and their negligence has resulted in thousands of injuries to and deaths of U.S. travelers.³⁰ According to the U.S. DOT, in 2023 trucks accounted for 13.4 percent of all highway fatalities, the vast majority of which involved collisions between trucks and passenger travelers.³¹ Furthermore, most hazardous materials are transported by trucks, meaning that the majority of crashes involving these dangerous materials occur on highways or at truck terminals.³² Consistent with these risks, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, in its Large Truck Causation Study, found that among roughly 78,000 crashes involving one large truck and one passenger vehicle, 87 percent were attributed to truck driver error.³³ The four categories associated with driver error in this study were non-performance of the driver, failure to recognize the danger, poor decisions, and poor performance.³⁴

Moreover, some motor carriers are worse than others. For example, AD Express Trucking, LLC, reported that nearly 12 percent of its drivers were involved in a crash last year alone.³⁵ In contrast, the worst carriers among those with more than 500 drivers generally have peak crash rates ranging from only about 5 to 6.5 percent.³⁶ For example, Western Express Inc., an American transportation and logistics company, reported that 270 of its 4,390 drivers were involved in crashes, including 4 fatalities.³⁷ While we must appreciate what freight brokers, motor carriers, and drivers do for the U.S., it is also critical to recognize the harm they cause to U.S. travelers while profiting off of the public roadways.

III. Discussion

The answer to the issue concerning freight broker liability is simple, and directly regarded by the safety exception of the FAA Authorization Act. Freight brokers must be held accountable for negligently hiring motor carriers. This Section supports this argument by first discussing the language of the FAA Authorization Act itself and demonstrating how Congress clearly intended the language of the safety exception to permit negligence suits against brokers. It then turns to public policy, demonstrating that failing to adopt the Sixth Circuit’s holding would put the lives of countless U.S. travelers at risk. Both the importance of the freight industry, as well as its potential for significant harm, are given due consideration in the following discussion.

A. Language of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act

The language of the FAA Authorization Act provides the safety exception to the preemption provision for precisely this reason, to ensure that U.S. freight transportation is safe by holding negligent brokers responsible. The exact language of this exception exempts from preemption “the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.”³⁸ The Sixth Circuit correctly analyzed this claim in Cox v. Total Quality Logistics, Inc., by considering two questions raised by the statute, “(1) whether common law tort claims like Mr. Cox’s negligent hiring claim are part of a State’s ‘safety regulatory authority,’ and (2) whether Mr. Cox’s claim is ‘with respect to motor vehicles.’”³⁹ The Sixth Circuit looked to the precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court for the first prong of this analysis. Citing Kurns v. R.R. Friction Prods. Corp., the Circuit Court held that a State’s “regulatory authority” encompasses common law claims, something long held by the Supreme Court.⁴⁰ Before turning to the second prong, the Court further considered whether these claims also implicate “safety.”⁴¹ Examining the specific claim against TQL, the circuit court held that “such negligent hiring claims seek to enforce a standard of care on brokers which, in turn, requires brokers to do their due diligence in ensuring that they are hiring safe motor carriers. This type of tort is, therefore, ‘genuinely responsive to safety concerns.’”⁴²

Because claims against freight brokers for negligent hiring of motor carriers fall within the State’s “safety regulatory authority,” the next prong considers whether they are “with respect to motor vehicles,” the issue at the heart of the circuit split.⁴³ To decide this, the Sixth Circuit again turned to Supreme Court precedent, focusing on the “plain wording” of the exception.⁴⁴ Looking to this precedent, the circuit court first defined “with respect to,” as assessing whether “the alleged negligent conduct ‘involves’ motor vehicles.⁴⁵ Fortunately the analysis ends here because the FAA Authorization Act specifically defines a “motor vehicle” as any “vehicle, machine, tractor, trailer, or semitrailer propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used on a highway in transportation, or a combination.”⁴⁶

Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court has already directly considered the language of the safety exception finding that “Congress’ clear purpose” in the exception is to ensure that the FAA Authorization Act “’not restrict’ the preexisting and traditional state power over safety.”⁴⁷ The language of the FAA Authorization Act makes it clear that (1) common law negligent hiring claims against freight brokers for selecting dangerous motor carriers fall within the State’s “safety regulatory authority” and (2) such claims are “with respect to motor vehicles,” meaning they are exempted from preemption under the FAA Authorization Act.⁴⁸ Instead, these claims fall into a special class of negligence claims that the legislation intentionally left exempted to protect public safety and encourage brokers to do their due diligence when hiring motor carriers.⁴⁹

B. Public Policy Considerations

Just as the language of the FAA Authorization Act makes clear that freight brokers should be held liable for their negligent hiring of dangerous motor carriers, so too does public policy. Consider the high number of fatalities and personal injuries already caused by the freight industry.⁵⁰ As the demand for freight transportation continues to increase, injuries and deaths caused by their negligence are likely to increase as well. While public policy will continue to favor business interests, it cannot do so at the cost of innocent lives. Allowing common law negligence suits against freight brokers adds an additional layer of protection to public safety by encouraging brokers to carefully choose safe motor carriers.⁵¹

Consider again the language used by the Sixth Circuit when it reasoned that “such negligent hiring claims seek to enforce a standard of care on brokers which, in turn, requires brokers to do their due diligence in ensuring that they are hiring safe motor carriers.”⁵² This promotes safety on U.S. roads by removing dangerous carriers from operation and incentivizing motor carriers to act responsibly, knowing that dangerous practices could cost them business. This could lead to positive changes among these hazardous companies such as, among other things, retraining, selective hiring, safer regulations, and firing dangerous drivers. In Cox, had TQL done its due diligence and looked at the FMCSA Safety Measurement System, it would have known that Golden Transit was an unsafe carrier and likely avoided its business altogether.⁵³ Had it done this, Greta Cox would likely still be alive. While public policy must encourage the transportation of essential goods, it must also encourage safe roadways by permitting claims against freight brokers for the negligent hiring of dangerous motor carriers.

IV. Conclusion

Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC is set to be argued in front of the U.S. Supreme Court this spring, ending the circuit split described in this Article. Once decided, freight broker’s liability for negligently hiring motor carriers will no longer vary depending on the circuit the crash occurred in. Regardless of the outcome, the Court’s decision will result in a consistent legal standard, and it is essential for the safety of U.S. travelers that the majority follows the holding set forth by the Sixth and Ninth Circuits. Common law negligent hiring claims against freight brokers are exempt from preemption by the FAA Authorization Act as safety regulatory authorities of a State with respect to motor vehicles. Congress included this exemption to encourage safe freight transportation and due diligence by freight brokers when they hire motor carriers. In Montgomery, the Seventh Circuit incorrectly interpreted the language of the FAA Authorization Act and failed to properly consider that public policy would reject trading U.S. traveler’s lives simply to accommodate freight brokers. For the sake of protecting U.S. roadways and the travelers using them, the Supreme Court must hold that, due to the Act’s safety exception, the FAA Authorization Act does not preempt lawsuits against freight brokers for negligently hiring motor carriers.

Cover Photo by Josiah Farrow on Unsplash

Jack Frischen

References

1
Montgomery v. Caribe Transp. II, LLC, 124 F.4th 1053 (7th Cir. 2025).
2
Marc S. Blubaugh, Every Victory is a New Beginning: U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Consider Freight Broker Liability, Benesch (Oct. 6, 2025), https://www.beneschlaw.com/insight/every-victory-is-a-new-beginning-u-s-supreme-court-agrees-to-consider-freight-broker-liability/ [https://perma.cc/7386-S3EF].
3
Montgomery, 124 F.4th at 1058.
4
Aspen Am. Ins. Co. v. Landstar Rager, Inc., 65 F.4th 1261, 1268 (11th Cir. 2023).
5
Cox v. Total Quality Logistic, Inc., 142 F.4th 847, 858 (6th Cir. 2025) (citing 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(2)(A)); Miller v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 976 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2020).
6
About Us, C.H. Robinson, https://www.chrobinson.com/en-us/about-us/ [https://perma.cc/D92T-EYLL] (last visited Mar. 1, 2026).
7
Montgomery v. Caribe Transp. II, LLC, 124 F.4th 1053, 1054 (7th Cir. 2025).
8
Id.
9
Id. at 1055.
10
Id.
11
Id. (citing Ye v. GlobalTranz Enters., 74 F.4th 453, 464-66 (7th Cir. 2023)).
12
49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1).
13
Montgomery v. Caribe Transp. II, LLC, 124 F.4th 1053, 1053 (7th Cir. 2025).
14
Cox v. Total Quality Logistics, Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104456, at *1-2 (S.D. Ohio 2024).
15
Id. at *2.
16
Cox v. Total Quality Logistics, Inc., 142 F.4th 847, 850 (6th Cir. 2025).
17
Id.
18
Id. at 849.
19
Id. at 852.
20
Id.
21
49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(2)(A).
22
Cox v. Total Quality Logistics, Inc., 142 F.4th 847, 854 (6th Cir. 2025).
23
Id. at 858.
24
Miller v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 976 F.3d 1016, 1031 (9th Cir. 2020).
25
The Economic Importance of Freight, Mid-America Freight Coalition,https://midamericafreight.org/index.php/outreach/importance/ [https://perma.cc/NYT5-KNQY] (last visited Mar. 1, 2026).
26
Id.
27
Freight Activity in the U.S Expected to Grow Fifty Percent by 2050, U.S. Dep’t of Transp.: Bureau of Transp. Stats.(Nov. 22, 2012), https://www.bts.gov/newsroom/freight-activity-us-expected-grow-fifty-percent-2050 [https://perma.cc/NNK4-MMKE].
28
Id.
29
Id.
30
Freight Transportation Safety, U.S. Dep’t of Transp.: Bureau of Transp. Stats. https://data.bts.gov/stories/s/Freight-Transportation-Safety/vu39-vtqh/ [https://perma.cc/V48V-XYK2] (last visited Mar. 1, 2026).
31
Id.
32
Id.
33
Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Admin., FMCSA-RRA-07-017, The Large Truck Causation Study – Analysis Brief (2014).
34
Id.
35
John Paul Hampstead, FMCSA Crash Data Highlights Growing Safety Concern, Freight Waves (Mar. 1, 2026), https://www.freightwaves.com/news/fmcsa-data-are-these-the-most-dangerous-trucking-carriers-in-america [https://perma.cc/PM7Y-6XRX].
36
Id.
37
Id.
38
49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(2)(A), emphasis added.
39
Cox v. Total Quality Logistics, Inc., 142 F.4th 847, 853 (6th Cir. 2025).
40
Id. at 853-54 (citing Kurns v. R.R. Friction Prods. Corp., 565 U.S. 625 637 (2012)).
41
Id. at 854.
42
Id.
43
Id.
44
Id. at 854-55 (citing CSX Transp. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658, 664 (1993)).
45
Cox v. Total Quality Logistics, Inc., 142 F.4th 847, 855 (6th Cir. 2025).
46
49 U.S.C. § 13102(16).
47
City of Columbus v. Ours Garage & Wrecker Serv., 536 U.S. 424, 439 (2002) (citing 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(2)(A)).
48
Cox, 142 F.4th at 853 (6th Cir. 2025).
49
Id. at 854.
50
Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Admin., FMCSA-RRA-07-017, The Large Truck Causation Study – Analysis Brief (2014).
51
Cox, 142 F.4th at 854 (6th Cir. 2025).
52
Id.
53
Id. at 850.