Justice Barrett wrote for a unanimous court in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, No. 24-1238, reversing 124 F.4th 1053 (7th Cir. 2025) and remanding for further proceedings.
Shawn Montgomery sued after his leg was amputated when Yosniel Varela-Mojena struck his stopped tractor-trailer with a Mack Truck hauling plastic pots through Illinois. Varela-Mojena drove for Caribe Transport II, LLC, a motor carrier, while C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. coordinated the shipment as a broker. Montgomery alleged C.H. Robinson negligently hired Caribe Transport despite its “conditional” safety rating from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, which had found deficiencies in driver qualification, hours of service, and crash rates.
The FAAAA expressly preempts state laws related to a price, route, or service of motor carriers and brokers, but its safety exception provides that preemption shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles. 49 U.S.C. §14501(c)(2)(A). The Court held that negligent-hiring claims concern motor vehicles because they impose a duty of care in selecting carriers whose trucks will transport goods.
The FAAAA supplies no definition of “with respect to,” so the Court gives the phrase its ordinary meaning, Barrett wrote, citing Dan’s City Used Cars, Inc. v. Pelkey, 569 U.S. 251 (2013), which construed the phrase to mean concerns. Requiring C.H. Robinson to exercise ordinary care in selecting a carrier concerns motor vehicles—most obviously, the trucks that will transport the goods.
C.H. Robinson and the United States argued the interpretation would swallow the FAAAA’s express preemption provision and create an anomaly with subsection (b), which preempts state regulation of intrastate broker activities without a safety exception. The Court acknowledged it was not obvious why Congress included a safety exception in subsection (c) but not in subsection (b), but said the text of subsection (c)(2)(A) controls.
Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Alito, agreeing with the result but noting the case was closer than the Court’s opinion perhaps might suggest. Kavanaugh observed that brokers do not own trucks or hire drivers, and that trucking companies are position to monitor their own trucks and drivers. But he agreed Congress did not intend to create a black hole with no meaningful safety-related regulation for brokers.
The Sixth and Ninth Circuits had held the safety exception saved negligent-hiring claims against brokers, while the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits held such claims were preempted. The decision aligns the Seventh Circuit with the majority view.
Montgomery’s negligent-hiring claim now returns to the Southern District of Illinois for further proceedings.