The United States Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, No. 24-1238, on May 14, 2026, significantly reshaping the landscape of freight broker liability. The decision removes a defense that brokers have relied upon for years and is expected to increase negligent hiring claims nationwide.
The case arose from a collision involving truck driver Shawn Montgomery. After pulling onto the shoulder of the roadway to address a mechanical issue with his vehicle, Montgomery was struck by a tractor-trailer that left the roadway. The collision resulted in severe and permanent injuries, including the amputation of Montgomery’s leg. The tractor-trailer was operated by Yosniel Varela-Mojena on behalf of Caribe Transport II. The shipment had been arranged by freight broker C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.
Montgomery sued the broker, alleging that C.H. Robinson negligently selected Caribe Transport II to haul the load despite knowing, or having reason to know, that the carrier presented safety concerns. Specifically, Montgomery alleged that federal regulators had assigned Caribe Transport II a “conditional” safety rating based on deficiencies involving driver qualifications, hours-of-service compliance, and crash history. His claim was based on the longstanding common-law principle that a party hiring an independent contractor to perform work involving a risk of physical harm must exercise reasonable care in selecting a competent contractor.
C.H. Robinson moved to dismiss the claim, arguing that it was preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (“FAAAA”). Congress enacted the FAAAA to promote uniformity and deregulation within the trucking industry. Under Section 14501(c)(1), the statute preempts state laws “related to a price, route, or service” of motor carriers and freight brokers with respect to the transportation of property. C.H. Robinson argued that a negligent hiring claim directly affected its brokerage services and therefore fell within the FAAAA’s broad preemption provision.
The Supreme Court unanimously disagreed. Writing for the Court, Justice Amy Coney Barrett held that negligent hiring claims against freight brokers fall within the FAAAA’s safety exception, which preserves a state’s “safety regulatory authority…with respect to motor vehicles.” The Court concluded that requiring brokers to exercise reasonable care when selecting motor carriers directly relates to highway safety because those decisions determine which commercial vehicles ultimately operate on public roadways. As a result, negligent hiring claims against freight brokers are no longer barred by federal preemption.
The practical implications of Montgomery are substantial. Most notably, the decision eliminates a key dispositive defense that freight brokers have successfully asserted for years. The impact is particularly significant in Georgia and throughout the Eleventh Circuit, where courts previously held that negligent hiring claims against brokers were preempted under the FAAAA. See, e.g., Aspen American Insurance Co. v. Landstar Ranger, Inc., 65 F.4th 1261 (11th Cir. 2023). Going forward, brokers can expect to see more negligent hiring claims survive the pleading stage, resulting in broader discovery into carrier selection practices, internal policies, safety reviews, and qualification procedures.
Importantly, Montgomery does not create a new legal duty. Freight brokers have long owed a common-law duty to exercise reasonable care when selecting motor carriers. Rather, the decision allows plaintiffs to pursue those claims in court without the obstacle of federal preemption. Whether a broker ultimately acted reasonably will now be decided on the facts of each case instead of being resolved through an early motion to dismiss.
In light of Montgomery, brokers should proactively evaluate and strengthen their carrier selection practices. A well-documented vetting process may become one of the strongest defenses in future litigation. Brokers should ensure they maintain written policies for carrier qualification, preserve documentation reflecting the information reviewed before tendering a load, and consistently verify operating authority, insurance coverage, and available safety data. Many brokers may also consider implementing third-party carrier qualification platforms to supplement internal procedures.
Although the full impact of Montgomery will develop over time, one thing is already clear: litigation involving freight brokers has entered a new phase. The focus will no longer be whether negligent hiring claims are preempted, but whether a broker exercised reasonable care when selecting the carrier in the first place. Brokers that invest in consistent vetting procedures and thorough documentation today will be in a far stronger position to defend against the inevitable wave of negligent hiring claims tomorrow.