The Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) will hear Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC during this term.  SCOTUS’s ruling can impact freight brokers and interstate commerce if SCOTUS finds federal law no longer preempts state-level negligent hiring claims.

Underlying Facts

Shawn Montgomery was severely injured when his truck, which was stopped on the side of the road, was hit by a tractor-trailer that veered off the road onto the shoulder of an Illinois highway. Mr. Montgomery sued the driver of the tractor-trailer as well as the motor carrier, Caribe Transport II, LLC (“Caribe”), and the freight broker, C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (“Robinson”). Mr. Montgomery claimed the freight broker, Robinson, had negligently hired the driver and the motor carrier,  Caribe, was vicariously liable for the driver’s torts.[i]

Lower Court Rulings

Regarding the vicarious liability claim, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Robinson, ruling Robinson was not vicariously liable for the driver’s torts because the carrier, Caribe, and its driver/employee were independent contractors of Robinson. Regarding the negligent hiring claim, the district court granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of Robinson based on the holding in Ye v. GlobalTranz Enterprises, Inc., 74 F.4th 453 (7th Cir. 2023).[ii]

Mr. Montgomery appealed the decision, arguing that an agency relationship existed between Robinson, on the one hand, and Caribe and its driver/employee, on the other. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals analyzed “whether the broker retained the right to control the manner of delivery, rather than its ‘mere result.’”[iii] Citing Cornejo v. Dakota Lines, Inc., the Court of Appeals noted courts have typically found a motor carrier and its driver are a freight broker’s independent contractors.[iv]

The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling that summary judgment was proper as to the vicarious liability claim against Robinson because “Robinson and Caribe adhered to their Broker/Carrier Agreement, which specified that Caribe was to be Robinson’s independent contractor, not agent,” and such labels “cannot be ignored.”[v] Additionally, in declining to find vicarious liability, the Court noted the following factors: Robinson did not provide or maintain Caribe’s equipment; Robinson did not choose the driver, route, hours of service, or locations for rest and fuel stops; Robinson did not make hiring or firing decisions for Caribe; Robinson did not pay drivers or even Caribe directly for the loads and did not withhold taxes or benefits from these payments; either party could terminate the relationship at any time; and finally, Robinson did not provide drivers with any training, manuals, or uniforms.[vi] “And, importantly, Caribe was prohibited from subcontracting or delegating work given to it by Robinson or otherwise contracting on its behalf.”[vii] For these reasons, the Court of Appeals found Caribe and its driver/employee were independent contractors of Robinson. As such, vicarious liability could not attach to Robinson.

Mr. Montgomery’s negligent hiring claim rested on the preemption provision of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (“FAAAA”), 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1), which bars state law claims against freight brokers for the negligent hiring of motor carriers and their drivers. The Court of Appeals declined to overrule the circuit court precedent set forth in Ye v. GlobalTranz Enterprises, Inc. because there was not a compelling reason to overturn the precedent.[viii]

Potential Impact on the Trucking Industry

 The FAAAA, while having “aviation” in its title, also covers motor carriers and freight brokers. The issue SCOTUS will address is whether state tort claims, like negligent hiring of a motor carrier, qualifies as a motor vehicle “safety regulation” as set forth in the FAAAA.

Robinson argues that in enacting the FAAAA: (1) Congress intended to preempt state regulation of broker services; and (2) state tort claims for negligent hiring are not part of the safety exception under the FAAAA. Robinson further argues holding state tort claims as a “safety exception” would allow each state to enact different standards, which would disrupt the efficiency of the interstate supply chain and deregulate the marketplace.

Takeaways

If SCOTUS affirms the Court of Appeals’ ruling that the FAAAA preempts state tort claims for negligent hiring, it will reduce exposure to inconsistent state-level litigation, preserve competition, and ensure the free flow of interstate commerce. Affirming the lower court’s decision will also provide legal certainty for the trucking industry including brokers, motor carriers, and shippers with interstate operations.

SCOTUS has yet to set a briefing schedule for this case.

Keep Reading

Private Thoughts, Public Evidence: AI Chat Conversations and the Next Wave of Discovery From Classroom to Courtroom: My Personal Journey to Becoming an Attorney Setting Goals & Holding Ourselves Accountable New York State’s AVOID Act Will Drastically Change Third-Party Litigation This Spring From Zero to AI‑Augmented Litigator: My Journey from Avoidance and Fear to Delighted Learner Extraordinary Review: The Life of a Writ in California How I Use the Core Four as the Parent of Teenagers New Laws for The New Year – How To Stay on Santa’s “Good” List in 2026 A Spoonful of Error Makes the Verdict Go Down: The Importance of Contemporaneous Objections

More by this author

The Fate of State Tort Claims in the Trucking Industry: SCOTUS To Decide In Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC A Lawyer’s Guide To Managing Deadlines Nevada Doubles Down with Updated Arbitration Rules Trial Prep: Expectation vs. Reality

Sources

[i] Montgomery v. Caribe Transp. II, LLC, 124 F.4th 1053, 1054 (7th Cir. 2025), cert. granted, No. 24-1238, 2025 WL 2808807 (U.S. Oct. 3, 2025).

[ii] Ye v. GlobalTranz Enterprises, Inc., 74 F.4^th 453, 464-66 (7^th Cir.2023).

[iii] Montgomery v. Caribe Transp. II, LLC, at 1055 (citing Cornejo v. Dakota Lines, Inc., 471 Ill.Dec. 795, 229 N.E.3d 546, 553 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023)).

[iv] Id. (citing Cornejo v. Dakota Lines, Inc. at 556-58).

[v] Montgomery v. Caribe Transp. II, LLC at 1055 (citing Cornejo at 55).

[vi] Id. At 1058 (citing Cornejo at 559-60).

[vii] Id.

[viii] Id.