Behind many catastrophic truck crashes is a company most people never hear about: the freight broker that picked the trucking company and put it on the road. For years brokers argued a federal law shielded them from being sued for that choice. In May 2026, in a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. Here is what Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II actually held, who the broker is in the chain, and how it changes a catastrophic truck-crash case.
When a tractor-trailer causes a catastrophic crash, the obvious defendants are the driver and the trucking company that employs the driver. But there is often a third party a step back in the chain — the freight broker that arranged the load and chose which trucking company would haul it. That broker never touches the truck. It sits at a desk and decides who gets the work. For years, brokers argued that a 1994 federal law made them untouchable for that decision, even when they handed a load to a carrier with a dangerous safety record. On May 14, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States closed that argument.
This is a plain-English walk-through of what the Court decided in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, who the broker is in the chain of a truck-crash case, and why the ruling matters to a family that has been catastrophically hurt by a truck that never should have been on the road.
The Court held, unanimously (9–0), that a state-law claim accusing a freight broker of negligently hiring an unsafe motor carrier is not barred by federal law. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the opinion; Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a concurrence joined by Justice Samuel Alito. The decision was issued May 14, 2026, after argument on March 4, 2026, in Docket No. 24-1238. The practical effect is simple: an injured person can now bring that claim against a broker and try to prove it, instead of having it dismissed before any evidence is heard.
The case grew out of a real crash. According to the record, Shawn Montgomery was struck by a Caribe Transport II driver while parked on an Illinois highway and lost his leg. He sued the driver, the motor carrier, and the freight broker — C.H. Robinson, one of the largest freight brokers in the country — on the theory that the broker had negligently selected an unsafe carrier to haul the load. The broker moved to throw the claim out, arguing federal law preempted it. That preemption question is what reached the Supreme Court.
The shield brokers relied on comes from the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA). Despite the name, the statute deregulated trucking. Its preemption clause, 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1), bars states from enforcing any law "related to a price, route, or service" of a motor carrier or broker. The point was to keep states from re-regulating the economics of trucking after Congress had deregulated it. Brokers argued that a lawsuit second-guessing which carrier they hired was a state law "related to" their "service," and was therefore preempted.
But the same statute contains an exception. The safety exception, 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(2)(A), says the preemption clause "shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles." In plain terms: Congress deregulated the business of trucking, but it did not take away a state's traditional power to protect the public from unsafe vehicles. The whole case came down to whether a negligent-hiring claim against a broker fits inside that safety exception.
The dispute turned on three words: "with respect to." The safety exception preserves state safety authority "with respect to motor vehicles." Brokers argued that a claim about their hiring decision is not really about motor vehicles at all — it is about paperwork and business judgment. The Court rejected that framing. Justice Barrett construed "with respect to" to mean "concerns" or "regards," and concluded that requiring a broker to use ordinary care in choosing a carrier plainly concerns the vehicles that carrier puts on the road. As the opinion put it, requiring C.H. Robinson to exercise ordinary care in selecting a carrier "concerns" motor vehicles.
That reading matters beyond this one case, because it settles a split among the lower courts. Several federal courts of appeals — including the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits — had thrown out negligent-selection claims against brokers on preemption grounds, leaving injured people in some parts of the country with no path to hold a broker accountable while people in other circuits could. After Montgomery, the rule is the same nationwide.
It is important to be precise about the win, because a headline can overstate it. Montgomery does not make brokers automatically liable for crashes. It decides only that the claim is allowed to proceed — not that it succeeds. An injured person still has to prove the ordinary elements of negligence: that the broker owed a duty of care in selecting the carrier, that it failed to meet that standard, and that the failure was a cause of the crash and the injuries.
Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence underscored the point. He characterized the duty as manageable for careful brokers — a broker that asks the hard safety questions and hires a carrier with a reasonable safety record "is not going to have a problem." The flip side is the part that matters to injured families: a broker that ignored obvious red flags and handed a load to a carrier it should have known was dangerous now has to answer for that choice in front of a jury. Also unchanged is the rest of FAAAA preemption — state laws that regulate a broker's prices, routes, or services with no connection to safety remain preempted. The safety exception is a safety door, not a general one.
A freight broker is a middleman. It does not own trucks or employ drivers. It matches a shipper that has goods to move with a motor carrier that has the trucks and drivers to move them, and takes a fee for making the match. The motor carrier is the actual trucking company that operates the vehicle. In a modern freight economy, a single load can pass through a broker, sometimes more than one, before it ever reaches a truck. That structure is exactly why the broker's selection decision matters: the broker is often the party that decides whether a well-run carrier or a cut-rate, high-risk one gets the job.
For an injured family, this changes the arithmetic of a case in two ways. First, it can add a financially responsible, well-insured defendant in situations where the trucking company itself is a shell — a single-truck operation, a carrier that has since gone out of business, or one with thin coverage. Second, it opens a distinct corporate-negligence theory that runs parallel to the claim against the driver. This is the same shape as the way a driver-error truck case grows into a company case through hours-of-service and safety-management evidence — except the negligence here happened before the truck ever moved, in the decision to hire the carrier at all.
A negligent-selection claim is proven with the broker's own records and with public safety data that existed before the crash. When Alex Alvarez, Board Certified Civil Trial Lawyer, works one of these cases, the questions are concrete: What did the broker know about this carrier when it assigned the load? What did the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's public data show — the carrier's out-of-service rates, crash history, and Safety Measurement System scores? Did the broker have a vetting policy, and did it follow it? A carrier with a documented safety problem that a broker could have seen with a few clicks is the heart of a Montgomery claim.
The medical side runs in parallel. Herb Borroto, M.D., J.D., reads the injury the way a physician does — and in a catastrophic truck case the injuries are exactly the kind the safety rules exist to prevent. A crash violent enough to cause an amputation or limb loss, a spinal cord injury, or a fatal outcome is not a fender-bender that got out of hand; it is the predictable result of a heavy vehicle operated outside safe limits. Reading the medicine against the safety record is what shows a jury the connection between a paperwork decision at a broker's desk and a life permanently changed on the highway. And because the proof lives in records that can be lost, the same urgency applies here as in any serious crash — the reasons the first 24 hours matter apply to the broker's file and the carrier's data too.
If you or someone you love was catastrophically hurt or killed in a crash with a commercial truck, three things follow from Montgomery. First, the trucking company and the driver are not necessarily the only defendants — the broker that chose that carrier may be accountable too, and identifying every party in the chain is now part of a complete truck-crash investigation. Second, the case is time-sensitive: the safety data and the broker's selection records that prove or disprove the claim can disappear, so the work of preserving them starts immediately. Third, this is a technical area of law that most general practitioners never touch; it takes a firm that has actually litigated federal motor-carrier safety issues, not just filed insurance claims. The Supreme Court has now said the company that put an unsafe truck on the road can be made to answer for it. Making that promise real in a specific case is the work.
Yes, in the right case. On May 14, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC that a state-law claim accusing a freight broker of negligently hiring an unsafe motor carrier is not preempted by federal law. The Court held that such a claim falls within the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act's safety exception, which preserves a state's authority to regulate safety with respect to motor vehicles. The decision does not make brokers automatically liable; it means an injured person can bring the claim and prove it, rather than having it thrown out at the courthouse door.
A freight broker is a middleman that arranges transportation. It does not own the trucks or employ the drivers. Instead, it matches a shipper that needs goods moved with a motor carrier that has trucks and drivers to move them. The motor carrier is the trucking company that actually operates the vehicle. Large brokers such as C.H. Robinson arrange millions of loads a year. Because the broker chooses which carrier gets the load, its selection decision can put a dangerous trucking company on the road.
Shawn Montgomery was struck by a Caribe Transport II driver while parked on an Illinois highway and lost his leg. He sued the driver, the motor carrier, and the freight broker, C.H. Robinson, arguing the broker negligently selected an unsafe carrier. Lower courts had been divided on whether federal law barred the claim against the broker. On May 14, 2026, the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Barrett, unanimously held the claim is not preempted because it falls within the federal statute's safety exception.
No. The ruling decides that the claim is allowed, not that it wins. An injured person still has to prove the broker failed to use ordinary care in selecting the carrier and that the failure helped cause the crash. In a concurring opinion, Justice Kavanaugh emphasized that a broker that asks the hard safety questions and hires a carrier with a reasonable safety record should not have a problem. The case turns on what the broker knew or should have known about the carrier's safety history when it handed over the load.
The full case-type overview for serious commercial-truck crashes.
How a driver-error case grows into a corporate-negligence case.
Why the injury pattern is evidence — and who is liable.
The injuries the safety rules exist to prevent.
Why the records that prove a case have to be preserved fast.
When a truck crash takes a life, who has the right to sue.
The driver and the trucking company may not be the only ones responsible. We trace every party in the chain — including the broker that chose the carrier — and preserve the safety records that prove it. Herb Borroto, M.D., J.D., reads the medicine. Alex Alvarez evaluates the case. Free, confidential.
Free, confidential case review. We respond within 24 hours.
No fees unless we recover compensation for you.
Your information is confidential. Submitting this form does not create an attorney-client relationship.
What Happens Next
If your information appears to qualify you for help, a lawyer or someone from their team will reach out to you. If you don't hear back within seven days, please speak with another law firm — every legal matter has a filing deadline, and waiting too long can cost you the right to recover.
