Fact-Checked: Why Trust Rittgers Rittgers & Nakajima On May 14, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued one of the most significant trucking safety decisions in years. In Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, the Court unanimously ruled that freight brokers cannot use federal law as a shield against lawsuits alleging they negligently selected an unsafe trucking company to haul freight.
For victims of catastrophic truck crashes, this decision represents an important step toward safer highways. It reinforces a simple but powerful principle: companies that profit from arranging transportation should use reasonable care when deciding which trucking companies they trust with thousands of pounds of freight traveling alongside the rest of us on America’s roads.
What Is a Freight Broker?
Many people assume that the company transporting freight owns the truck, employs the driver, and deals directly with the customer. In reality, that often is not how the trucking industry works.
Instead, manufacturers and retailers frequently hire freight brokers. A broker acts as the middleman between a shipper and a trucking company. The broker finds a carrier willing to move the load and is paid for arranging the shipment.
A broker that repeatedly hires unsafe carriers increases the likelihood that dangerous trucks and poorly managed trucking companies will continue operating on public highways.
The Facts Behind the Case
The case arose after Shawn Montgomery suffered devastating injuries when a commercial truck struck his tractor-trailer while it was stopped on the shoulder of an Illinois highway. The collision resulted in the amputation of one of Mr. Montgomery’s legs and other permanent injuries.
Mr. Montgomery alleged that the freight broker, C.H. Robinson, should never have hired the trucking company involved because federal safety records allegedly showed serious deficiencies, including concerns involving driver qualifications, hours-of-service compliance, vehicle inspection and maintenance, and crash history.
C.H. Robinson argued that federal law prevented any negligent hiring claim from being brought at all.
Understanding the Federal Preemption Issue
One of the more confusing issues in trucking litigation is something lawyers call federal preemption. Federal preemption is derived from the general principle that federal law overrules the laws of individual states.
Congress passed a law known as the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) to prevent states from imposing different economic regulations on the trucking industry. The goal was to create a more uniform national freight market by limiting state laws that regulate trucking prices, routes, and services.
Some freight brokers argued that this law also prevented injured people from bringing ordinary negligence lawsuits against them after truck crashes. In other words, they claimed that because they provide transportation services, they could not be sued under state negligence law even if they carelessly selected an unsafe trucking company.
The Supreme Court rejected that argument.
Why the Supreme Court Said These Lawsuits Can Continue
The Court focused on an important part of the FAAAA called the “safety exception.”
Congress specifically stated that the law does not limit “the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.” The Supreme Court explained that state negligence law has always been one of the ways states promote public safety. According to the Court, requiring a freight broker to use reasonable care when selecting a trucking company plainly concerns motor vehicle safety because the decision determines which trucks will be operating on public highways. Therefore, negligent hiring claims fall within the statute’s safety exception and are not preempted by federal law.
The Court emphasized that Congress intended to deregulate the economics of trucking—not eliminate traditional state authority to protect public safety.
Why This Decision Will Improve Highway Safety
Before Montgomery, some brokers boasted that they had little legal exposure for choosing carriers with poor safety records. If those arguments had prevailed nationwide, brokers would have had fewer incentives to carefully evaluate the companies hauling freight on America’s highways. Now, brokers know that reasonable care matters.
A prudent freight broker should expect to devote greater attention to questions such as:
- Does the carrier have serious safety violations?
- Does the carrier have a history of crashes?
- Have federal regulators identified significant safety deficiencies?
- Has the carrier demonstrated a pattern of poor compliance with federal safety regulations?
- Should additional investigation be performed before entrusting this carrier with another shipment?
The Supreme Court did not hold that brokers automatically become liable whenever a truck crash occurs. Instead, the Court simply held that brokers, like everyone else, may be held responsible if they fail to exercise reasonable care and that failure contributes to someone being seriously injured.
Justice Kavanaugh Explained Why Accountability Matters
Although the Court’s decision was unanimous, Justice Kavanaugh wrote separately to explain why allowing these lawsuits is consistent with Congress’s goal of improving highway safety.
He observed that federal law imposes relatively few safety-related obligations directly on freight brokers regarding the selection of motor carriers. If state negligence claims were also eliminated, brokers would effectively operate in what he described as a safety “black hole” with little meaningful accountability for unsafe hiring decisions.
He also emphasized an important point for the industry: brokers that act reasonably and select reputable carriers should be able to defend these cases successfully. The decision does not impose automatic liability; it requires reasonable care.
What This Means for Injury Victims Going Forward
Trucking cases often involve multiple companies, each playing a different role in getting freight from one place to another.
The Supreme Court’s decision confirms that freight brokers are not automatically immune from responsibility simply because they did not own the truck or directly employ the driver.
When evidence shows that a broker negligently selected an unsafe motor carrier, injured victims may now pursue those claims under state negligence law.
The truck safety lawyers here at Rittgers Rittgers & Nakajima celebrate the Court’s decision. Every company involved in commercial transportation—including freight brokers—should take reasonable steps to ensure that the carriers they choose can operate safely. The Montgomery decision reinforces that principle and should encourage better decision-making throughout the trucking industry, making our highways safer for everyone.