Two freight brokers receive load tenders on the same Monday morning. The first broker runs a Carrier411 check on the proposed motor carrier, finds the carrier’s CSA Vehicle Maintenance BASIC score above the FMCSA intervention threshold, and three unsafe driving violations in the preceding 12 months. The first broker rejects the carrier and selects a different one. The second broker has the same data available, runs no check, and tenders the load. The carrier’s driver causes a crash on I-75 outside Tifton three days later. The plaintiff’s complaint names both the carrier and the broker. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s May 2026 decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, the broker’s federal preemption defense to negligent selection no longer carries the protection it offered in the Eleventh Circuit before that decision.
Freight brokers and shippers occupy roles in the commercial transportation chain that are distinct from the motor carrier. The motor carrier operates the truck. The shipper owns the cargo. The freight broker arranges the transportation by matching shippers with carriers. Each party can, under specific circumstances, face liability for a truck accident, but the legal frameworks that apply are different from the framework that applies to the carrier and driver.
This article walks through the three commercial transportation roles, the broker negligent selection theory, the federal preemption analysis under the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA), the U.S. Supreme Court’s May 2026 decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II that resolved a longstanding circuit split on the broker preemption question, the shipper liability theories that operate outside FAAAA preemption, and the discovery scope that applies in cases against brokers and shippers.
Three commercial transportation roles #
Commercial freight transportation involves three primary roles, each with distinct legal duties and liability exposure.
- Motor carrier. The party that operates the truck and transports the cargo. The motor carrier holds the FMCSA operating authority, employs or contracts with the driver, and bears the federal safety regulatory burden. Motor carrier liability is covered in the companion piece on motor carrier liability.
- Freight broker. The party that arranges transportation by matching shippers with carriers. The broker does not transport cargo; the broker’s service is connecting parties. Brokers are regulated under 49 C.F.R. Part 371 and hold FMCSA broker authority distinct from motor carrier authority.
- Shipper. The party that owns the cargo and arranges its transportation. The shipper may hire a broker, hire a carrier directly, or operate its own private fleet. The shipper’s role typically ends when the cargo is loaded; for some shippers, the role extends to loading and securement of the cargo.
A single transaction can involve all three roles, and the parties’ contractual relationships can affect their respective liability exposure.
Broker liability: the negligent selection theory #
The traditional theory of broker liability in commercial truck accident cases is negligent selection. The theory asserts that the broker carried a duty to select a competent motor carrier, breached that duty by selecting a carrier the broker knew or should have known was unsafe, and that the negligent selection proximately contributed to the crash. The duty is sometimes called a “negligent hiring” or “negligent retention” duty applied to the broker-carrier relationship.
For a plaintiff to develop a broker negligent selection theory, the typical evidence focus includes:
- The broker’s pre-tender investigation of the motor carrier’s safety record
- The carrier’s CSA Safety Measurement System scores at the time of tender
- The carrier’s operating authority status (active, conditional, unsatisfactory)
- The carrier’s insurance status and history
- The broker’s internal carrier qualification protocols and whether they were followed
- The broker’s prior knowledge of safety issues with the specific carrier
- Industry standard practices for broker carrier qualification
The negligent selection theory has been the focus of significant federal court litigation in recent years because of the interaction with the FAAAA preemption clause.
FAAAA preemption and the safety exception #
The Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 at 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1) preempts state laws “related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier, broker, or freight forwarder with respect to the transportation of property.” The provision was enacted to ensure uniformity in federal transportation regulation and to prevent state-by-state variation in commercial trucking regulation.
The FAAAA includes a “safety exception” at 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(2)(A), which provides that the preemption clause “shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.”
For roughly six years, federal courts split on whether FAAAA preemption bars state-law negligent selection claims against brokers and whether the safety exception saves such claims. The Ninth Circuit in Miller v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 976 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2020) held that the safety exception saves the negligent selection claim. The Eleventh Circuit (which covers Georgia) in Aspen American Insurance Co. v. Landstar Ranger, Inc., 65 F.4th 1261 (11th Cir. 2023) and the Seventh Circuit in Ye v. GlobalTranz Enterprises, Inc., 74 F.4th 453 (7th Cir. 2023) reached the opposite conclusion, holding that the safety exception does not apply to broker negligent selection claims. The Sixth Circuit in Cox v. Total Quality Logistics, Inc., 142 F.4th 847 (6th Cir. 2025) sided with the Ninth Circuit.
Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II (U.S. May 14, 2026) #
The U.S. Supreme Court resolved the circuit split in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, No. 24-1238, decided May 14, 2026. The Court held unanimously (9-0) that a state common-law negligent hiring claim against a freight broker for selecting an unsafe motor carrier falls within the FAAAA’s safety exception and is therefore not preempted. Justice Barrett delivered the opinion of the Court, and Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion joined by Justice Alito.
The Court’s analytical framework is direct. The FAAAA’s safety exception preserves state authority to regulate safety “with respect to motor vehicles.” The Court read “with respect to motor vehicles” by ordinary meaning (“referring to,” “concerning”) rather than as a narrow limit. Because a broker’s selection of a motor carrier directly concerns the trucks that will transport the goods, a state negligent hiring claim that requires the broker to exercise ordinary care in carrier selection is a state regulation “with respect to motor vehicles.” The safety exception therefore saves the claim from preemption.
The Court did not need to decide whether the FAAAA’s general preemption clause would otherwise apply, because the safety exception’s coverage answered the case.
What Montgomery means for Georgia plaintiffs #
Montgomery effectively reverses the Eleventh Circuit’s position in Aspen v. Landstar on the safety exception question. Following Montgomery, a Georgia plaintiff pursuing a negligent selection claim against a freight broker can rely on the FAAAA’s safety exception to defeat a preemption defense, whether the claim is brought in state or federal court.
The substantive negligent selection theory remains the same: the plaintiff must prove that the broker carried a duty to select a competent motor carrier, breached that duty by selecting a carrier the broker knew or should have known was unsafe, and that the negligent selection proximately contributed to the crash. What changes is the procedural posture. Brokers can no longer move to dismiss negligent selection claims on FAAAA preemption grounds and expect the motion to be granted on the safety exception analysis that prevailed in the Eleventh Circuit before May 14, 2026.
Broker insurance coverage, broker carrier qualification protocols, and broker industry practices regarding access to FMCSA safety data (including SAFER, CSA Safety Measurement System scores, and operating authority status) are likely to evolve in the wake of Montgomery as brokers adjust to renewed liability exposure for negligent selection.
The decision is recent at the time of this article’s publication. Lower court applications of Montgomery, including specific evidentiary standards and the interaction with other broker defenses (vicarious liability boundaries, contractual indemnification, agency questions), will develop through case-by-case litigation. Plaintiffs and defendants in pending broker negligent selection cases should monitor post-Montgomery developments closely.
Shipper liability theories #
Shipper liability operates on grounds distinct from broker liability and generally outside FAAAA preemption. Several theories can support shipper liability in commercial truck accident cases.
Negligent loading or securement #
When the shipper loads the cargo onto the trailer (or controls the loading), the shipper carries a duty of reasonable care in loading and securement. Improperly loaded or secured cargo can cause crashes through cargo shift, overweight conditions, imbalanced load distribution, or escaped cargo on the roadway. A shipper that negligently loaded or secured cargo, and whose negligence proximately contributed to a crash, can face direct negligence liability.
The federal cargo securement standards at 49 C.F.R. Part 393 Subpart I apply primarily to the motor carrier and driver, but a shipper that participated in loading or that controlled the loading process can face liability for shipper-side conduct.
Negligent selection of carrier #
A shipper that hired the motor carrier directly (without a broker intermediary) and that selected an unsafe carrier may face a theory analogous to the broker negligent selection theory. The shipper carrier selection theory operates under common law negligence rather than under the broker-specific framework. The FAAAA preemption analysis may apply differently because the shipper is not a “broker” within the statutory definition; the shipper’s selection of a carrier may not fall within the “broker services” preemption.
Negligent route or time pressure #
A shipper that imposed delivery schedules requiring the driver to violate hours of service or other safety regulations, or that pressured the carrier to use unsafe routes or operating practices, can face a theory based on the shipper’s affirmative conduct rather than on selection alone.
Vicarious liability for shipper-controlled operations #
When the shipper exercised significant control over the manner and method of the transportation (route, schedule, vehicle, driver), the shipper may face vicarious liability under agency principles. The analysis is fact-specific and operates similarly to the independent contractor analysis applied to motor carrier vicarious liability.
Apportionment under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33 #
Georgia’s apportionment statute at O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33 allocates damages among all responsible parties in proportion to relative fault. In multi-defendant truck accident cases, the apportionment analysis can include the motor carrier, the driver, the broker, the shipper, third-party maintenance providers, cargo loaders, other drivers, and the plaintiff. The jury allocates fault percentages, and damages are paid accordingly.
When a defendant is dismissed on preemption grounds (such as a broker dismissed under Aspen), that defendant is removed from the apportionment analysis. The remaining defendants face apportionment among themselves and the plaintiff. The strategic implications of which defendants remain in the case affect both the apportionment math and the trial dynamics.
Discovery scope for broker and shipper liability #
Plaintiffs pursuing broker or shipper liability theories typically request the following document categories:
- The broker-carrier agreement and the shipper-broker agreement
- All carrier qualification records the broker maintained for the specific motor carrier
- The broker’s internal carrier qualification protocols and policies
- The motor carrier’s CSA Safety Measurement System scores at the time of tender and historical CSA scores
- The motor carrier’s FMCSA operating authority status records at the time of tender
- The motor carrier’s insurance records as of the tender date
- All shipping documents, including bills of lading, load tenders, and route instructions
- Cargo loading and securement records, including loading photographs if available
- The shipper’s internal cargo loading policies and any training records for loaders
- Communications between the shipper, broker, and carrier regarding the specific load
What changes when a broker is in the case #
Broker and shipper liability theories operate alongside motor carrier and driver liability in Georgia commercial truck accident cases, with distinct legal frameworks for each role. The U.S. Supreme Court’s May 14, 2026 decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC reversed the Eleventh Circuit’s prior position on the FAAAA safety exception and held that state-law negligent hiring claims against freight brokers fall within the safety exception and are not preempted. Shipper liability theories operate under broader negligence principles and have historically operated outside the broker-specific FAAAA preemption framework. Georgia tort law at O.C.G.A. § 51-1-6, § 51-12-33, and § 9-3-33 supplies the recovery framework, the apportionment allocation, and the two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims. The companion pieces in this cluster cover related topics, including motor carrier liability, driver liability, and the federal regulations that anchor the underlying negligence analysis.
Disclaimer #
This article is published for educational and informational purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship between any reader and the publisher, the author, or any law firm. Personal injury law in Georgia is fact-specific, and the rules summarized here can change through new legislation, regulatory updates, and court decisions after this article’s publication date. Statutes, case citations, and regulatory provisions referenced in this article are summarized for general understanding; readers should consult the current official text of any law cited and should not rely on this article for the resolution of a specific legal question.
If you have been injured in a commercial truck accident in Georgia and want to understand how the law applies to your situation, consult a licensed Georgia personal injury attorney. An attorney can review the facts of your case, identify the deadlines and procedural requirements that apply to you, evaluate the universe of potentially liable defendants and applicable insurance coverage, and advise you on your options under current Georgia law.
Nothing in this article should be read as a guarantee of any particular outcome, a recommendation about whether to settle or pursue litigation in any specific case, or a substitute for personalized legal counsel.