Introduction

The trucking industry makes life possible by ensuring that everyone has access to the goods they need. But the trucks themselves can end lives if they are not driven carefully, which is why trucking brokers play an important role. Trucking brokers are there to help companies choose the right motor carriers to transport cargo safely at a price which keeps the goods affordable for those who need them. Until recently, brokers were not necessarily liable for negligently choosing and hiring the wrong motor carriers. But although the Supreme Court of the United States held that brokers can be sued for negligence under state law in May 2026, C.H. Robinson Company, Inc. was dismissed from such a lawsuit against it just a month later by marshaling facts backed up by evidence naturally arising from solid business practices and good record-keeping.

Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, 146 S.Ct. 1199 (2026).

On May 14, 2026, the Supreme Court issued an opinion which changed the landscape of trucking lawsuits.[i] In Montgomery, the plaintiff sued after his tractor-trailer was struck by a truck on the side of an Illinois highway, causing severe injuries.[ii] He sued the driver of the truck, the motor carrier (“Caribe Transport”, and the broker (“C.H. Robinson”).[iii] He claimed C.H. Robinson was negligent in retaining Caribe Transport (and the driver) because the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration had “allegedly found Caribe Transport to be deficient ‘with respect to qualification of drivers,’ ‘hours of service of drivers,’ ‘inspection, repair and maintenance,’ ‘recordable crash rate,’ and more.”[iv] The trial court held that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act preempted the plaintiff’s negligent hiring claim against C.H. Robinson, and that the claim did not fall within the Act’s safety exception, so C.H. Robinson could not be held liable for Caribe Transport’s negligence under state law.[v] Because different courts across the country treated such claims differently under the Act, the Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction to resolve the dispute.[vi]

The Court agreed with the plaintiff that, even if the Act preempted his negligent hiring claim against C.H. Robinson as the broker, the safety exception saved his case.[vii] The Act was initially enacted to preempt state regulation of motor carriers in the name of protecting free trade and avoiding unreasonable costs for consumers.[viii] The Act was later amended to “preempt state regulations involving other players in the transportation industry, including brokers.”[ix] But the safety exception “provides that the preemption provision ‘shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.’”[x]

Citing that exception, the Court noted: “[a]ll agree that common-law duties and standards of care form part of a State’s authority to regulate safety.”[xi] In turn, “[n]egligent-hiring claims impose a duty of reasonable care in employing a contractor for work carrying a risk of physical harm.”[xii] The Court therefore held the negligent hiring claim against C.H. Robinson was a claim “with respect to motor vehicles[,]” which placed it squarely within the safety exception to the Act’s preemption provision.[xiii] Ultimately, the Court reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings against all parties, including C.H. Robinson.[xiv]

Cantelar v. Singh, et al.

On June 11, 2026, approximately a month after the Montgomery decision, Yaniel Cantelar filed suit against several parties in St. Lucie County, Florida.[xv] One of those parties was C.H. Robinson.[xvi] The lawsuit alleged that on August 12, 2025, Harjinder Singh had negligently operated his truck by making an improper U-turn at a section of the highway reserved for “official use” and thereby caused the death of Faniola Joseph.[xvii] Further, the lawsuit alleged that the motor carrier knew or should have known that Singh was unfit to drive the truck and that C.H. Robinson knew or should have known that the motor carrier was an unfit choice to move this cargo.[xviii] Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that C.H. Robinson should have been aware that the motor carrier:

(a) . . . had been involved in a prior reportable crash on or about December 9, 2024; (b) its drivers had been repeatedly cited in roadside inspections for unsafe-driving violations, including speeding, speeding in a work zone, inattentive or distracted driving, an improper lane change, and a failure to yield under the move-over law; (c) its drivers had been repeatedly cited for hours-of-service violations, including making false reports and false records of duty status that concealed hours-of service violations, several of which resulted in drivers being placed out of service; and (d) was cited for additional defects including brakes out of adjustment, air-brake leaks, and wheel-seal leaks.[xix]

Shortly after the suit was filed, though, the plaintiff dismissed C.H. Robinson.[xx] These allegations seem strikingly similar to those in Montgomery, so how was C.H. Robinson dismissed?

Shortly after the suit was filed, though, the plaintiff dismissed C.H. Robinson.[xx] These allegations seem strikingly similar to those in Montgomery, so how was C.H. Robinson dismissed?

Although the law was not on C.H. Robinson’s side following the Montgomery decision, the facts were.[xxi] While the Supreme Court’s decision made the plaintiff’s cause of action viable, C.H. Robinson showed the plaintiff that it had nothing to do with retaining the motor carrier or driver involved in this accident.[xxii] C.H. Robinson’s records showed that particular motor carrier had been “blocked in [their] system from being booked for any load.”[xxiii] In fact, C.H. Robinson could demonstrate that the carrier had last transported a load for C.H. Robinson in January 2024, well before the August 2025 accident.[xxiv] The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the suit in light of the facts shown by C.H. Robinson’s records.[xxv]

Conclusion

The law will not always be favorable. But good business practices, including conscientious decision-making and good record-keeping can still save companies from being involved in costly, drawn-out litigation. Even if other plaintiffs are not as respectful of the justice system by agreeing to dismiss a defendant who demonstrates a lack of liability, reliable records can still show the courts that certain claims should be dismissed.

Keep Reading

Special Report: Five Key Takeaways on Florida Plaintiff Tactics Plaintiffs’ Attempts to Expedite an Appeal Gone Wrong: Maniago v. Dessert Cardiology Consultants’ Medical Group, Inc. Confidential Does Not Mean AI-Proof: Updating Protective Orders for AI The Arizona Pocket Fire: Do Not Wait for the Flames, Act Now! The Reason for Reason Waiving the Past to Inflate the Future: When Plaintiffs Take Corenbaum Too Far The Origins of “Accountability”—Why It Matters to Civil Trial Attorneys NYC: The City That Never Stops Hosting Punitive Liability Through the Rear Window: Lessons Learned from a Class Action Filing

More by this author

Good Record-Keeping is the Best Medicine More Isn’t Better if You Can’t Prove It The Sixth Sense is Common Sense: Florida Court Holds No Duty to Warn When Adults Fail to Use Ordinary Care for Their Own Safety A Spoonful of Error Makes the Verdict Go Down: The Importance of Contemporaneous Objections It’s All Legalese to Me: How Taking Responsibility Can Help Avoid Liability I Object! Are You Comfortable Using Legal Jargon in Everyday Life? Laughing Gas Is No Laughing Matter: New Lawsuit May Impose Strict Liability on Nitrous Oxide Manufacturers for Marketing Practices In Florida, What You See is What You Get Whether You Click on It or Not