(The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of FreightWaves or its affiliates.)
In a major legal battle at the U.S. Supreme Court, 29 states plus the District of Columbia have joined forces to support a truck accident victim. Their amicus or “friend of the court” brief argues that federal law shouldn’t override state rules on holding companies accountable for careless hiring in the trucking industry. The case, Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, could reshape how states protect drivers on the road. Let’s break it down.
The Crash That Started It All
The story begins with a serious accident in Illinois. Shawn Montgomery was hit by a tractor-trailer driven by an employee of Caribe Transport, LLC. Montgomery sued the driver and the trucking company, but he also targeted C.H. Robinson Worldwide, the broker that hired the trucking firm. Under Illinois law, Montgomery claimed the broker was negligent for choosing an “unfit” carrier, one with a poor safety record. A federal district court and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Montgomery. They said a 1994 federal law, the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (often called the F4A), “preempts” or blocks state laws like this. The law aims to deregulate trucking to make shipping cheaper and faster, but it includes a clause that bars states from making rules “related to” brokers’ services. The courts decided Montgomery’s lawsuit fell under that ban. Montgomery has asked the Supreme Court to review the decision, and they agreed to hear the case. This is where the states come in.
What the States Are Saying
Led by Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, the brief argues that the lower courts got it wrong. The states say Congress never meant to wipe out traditional state tort laws, rules that let people sue for harm caused by negligence. Here’s the core of their case:
Respecting Federalism:
- The U.S. Constitution splits power between the federal government and the states. This “dual-sovereign” system lets states handle areas like road safety, which they’ve done for over a century. The brief cites Supreme Court rulings, like Bond v. United States, that warn against federal laws invading state turf without clear permission from Congress. Without a “clear statement” in the F4A saying it preempts these lawsuits, states should keep their authority.
Road Safety Is a State Job:
- States have long regulated highways through laws on speed limits, vehicle inspections, and driver qualifications. For example, Ohio has detailed rules in its Revised Code for traffic and motor carriers. The brief points out that negligent-hiring claims are a key part of this, they deter brokers from picking risky truckers. If federal law blocks these suits, it could lead to more accidents without holding anyone responsible.
Balancing Safety and Business:
- States use their court systems to fine-tune liability. Some, like South Carolina, follow “contributory negligence,” where if you’re even 1% at fault, you can’t win a lawsuit. Others, like California, use “comparative negligence,” sharing blame proportionally. The brief argues that preempting these laws disrupts this balance, forcing a one-size-fits-all federal approach that ignores local needs.
- The states list dozens of court cases and laws to back this up, showing how similar lawsuits have worked in places like Alabama, Tennessee, and Maryland.
Why This Brief Matters So Much.
This isn’t just about one accident; it’s a fight over who controls America’s roads. If the Supreme Court sides with the lower courts, brokers like C.H. Robinson could hire the cheapest, riskiest truckers without fear of state lawsuits. That might lower shipping costs but could spike accidents. Trucks cause about 5,000 deaths yearly in the U.S., per federal data, and states argue their laws save lives by encouraging safer choices. The brief’s power comes from its broad support: red states like Ohio and Alabama team up with blue ones like California and New York, plus D.C. This unity shows federalism isn’t partisan, it’s about protecting state experiments in lawmaking.
If brokers escape accountability, victims like Montgomery might have fewer options for justice, shifting costs to taxpayers through higher insurance or public aid. The Supreme Court hasn’t decided yet, but this brief urges caution: Don’t upend state power without Congress saying so clearly. For everyday drivers, it could mean safer roads, or more risks if states lose this tool. Where will SCOTUS ultimately land? Stay tuned.
Matthew Leffler is a transportation attorney, adjunct professor of law at Michigan State University College of Law, and the host of the Armchair Attorney® Podcast. He can be reached at matthew@armchairattorney.com
