Negligent Hiring Tort not Preempted by Federal Statute

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/faa-authorization-act-does-preempt-all-state-tort-zalma-esq-cfe-6jkvc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5350 posts.

In Shawn Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, et al., 608 U.S.__ No. 24-1238, United States Supreme Court (May 14, 2026) Shawn Montgomery suffered severe and permanent injuries when his tractor trailer was struck by a truck driven by Yosniel Varela-Mojena while Varela-Mojena was transporting plastic pots through Illinois for Caribe Transport II, LLC. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., acting as a transportation broker, had arranged the shipment.

Montgomery sued the driver, the motor carrier, the broker, and related entities, alleging that C.H. Robinson negligently hired Varela-Mojena and Caribe Transport despite safety information that allegedly showed Caribe Transport posed an unreasonable risk of crashes and injury.

LAW

The Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act preempts state laws having the force and effect of law that are related to a price, route, or service of a motor carrier, broker, or freight forwarder with respect to the transportation of property. The Act also contains a safety exception providing that the preemption provision shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.

State common-law duties and standards of care can constitute safety regulatory authority, and negligent-hiring doctrine imposes a duty of reasonable care when selecting a contractor for work that creates a risk of physical harm.

DISCUSSION

The Supreme Court assumed for purposes of analysis that Montgomery’s negligent-hiring claim might otherwise fall within the FAAAA’s express preemption clause but held that the safety exception saves the claim. The Court reasoned that the phrase “with respect to motor vehicles” should be given its ordinary meaning, including claims that concern or regard vehicles used in transportation.

Because Montgomery’s claim challenged C.H. Robinson’s selection of a carrier whose trucks would transport the goods, and because the alleged negligence related to motor-vehicle safety risks, the claim concerned motor vehicles within the meaning of the safety exception.

ANALYSIS

The Federal Government began regulating the trucking industry in 1935. The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) initially regulated rates and services of motor carriers “‘in the public interest.'” But the ICC’s interventions “inhibit[ed] market entry [and] carrier growth,” creating “some operating inefficiencies and some anticompetitive pricing.” Its regulation also stifled brokers’ development. Congress enacted the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 to deregulate aspects of the industry. The Motor Carrier Act eased entry requirements, reduced collective rate making, and encouraged greater flexibility in pricing.

SCOTUS rejected C.H. Robinson’s arguments that Montgomery’s interpretation would swallow the preemption rule, create surplusage, or improperly extend the exception to brokers. The safety exception does not save every claim related to transportation services; it saves only claims involving state safety regulation concerning motor vehicles. Nor did the Court view the absence of a safety exception in the Act’s intrastate-broker provision as sufficient reason to narrow the text of subsection 14501(c)(2)(A).

Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence emphasized that the case was close, noting competing statutory-context arguments, but concluded that Congress likely did not use indirect language in an economic-deregulation statute to eliminate state tort remedies against brokers who negligently select unsafe motor carriers.

CONCLUSIONS

The holding is that state negligent-hiring claims against transportation brokers are not barred by the FAAAA when they fall within the Act’s safety exception because they concern motor-vehicle safety.

The decision preserves state tort authority over broker conduct connected to the selection of unsafe motor carriers while leaving ordinary economic regulation of broker prices, routes, and services subject to federal preemption.

ZALMA OPINION

Although federal Regulations try to control everything they are directed at, when the language of the statute seemed clear SCOTUS found that the Act it was asked to rule upon also contains a safety exception providing that the preemption provision shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles. Shawn Montgomery sued for the negligent hiring of the driver who negligently caused his injury and SCOTUS found that the statute did not preempt the states right to allow the negligent hiring claim brought by Shawn Montgomery for his injuries.

(c) 2026 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.

Subscribe to my substack at https://gbarryzalma.substack.com/subscribe

Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://Cwww.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.