Oral Argument: Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II | Can Truck Brokers Dodge Crash Lawsuits?
HomeThe High Court Report › Episode

Oral Argument: Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II | Can Truck Brokers Dodge Crash Lawsuits?

1:40:53 Mar 4, 2026
About this episode
Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC | Oral Argument: 3/4/2026 | Case No. 24-1238 | Docket Link: HereQuestion Presented: Whether the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act preempts state common-law tort claims against brokers for negligently selecting motor carriers or drivers whose vehicles subsequently cause accidents.Overview: Trucking broker liability case determines whether federal deregulation law blocks state tort claims for negligent hiring practices that result in highway accidents with severe injuries.Posture: Seventh Circuit affirmed preemption; Ninth Circuit rejected preemption; circuit split.Main Arguments:• Montgomery (Petitioner): (1) Federal safety exception explicitly preserves state tort claims against broker negligent selection; (2) Fair interpretation requires consistent broad reading of both preemption provision and safety exception; (3) Longstanding common law negligent hiring claims predate federal trucking regulation• C.H. Robinson/Caribe (Respondents): (1) Federal law preempts broadly any state regulation of broker services and selection decisions; (2) Safety exception applies narrowly only to direct motor vehicle operation regulation; (3) Comprehensive federal regulatory scheme provides adequate safety oversightImplications: Montgomery victory preserves state tort accountability for broker hiring decisions, incentivizing highway safety through market liability. Respondent victory eliminates broker accountability for negligent selection, potentially reducing safety screening while limiting victim compensation options for trucking accidents.The Fine Print:49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1): states may not enforce laws "related to a price, route, or service" of brokers "with respect to the transportation of property"49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(2)(A): the preemption provision "shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles"49 U.S.C. § 14501(b)(1): states may not enforce laws "relating to intrastate rates, intrastate routes, or intrastate services" of brokersPrimary Cases:• Dan's City Used Cars v. Pelkey (2013): Phrase "with respect to the transportation of property" in FAAAA preemption provision "massively limits" federal preemption scope, requiring direct connection to transportation services• Miller v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide (9th Cir. 2020): State negligent hiring
Select an episode
0:00 0:00