.

Sixth Circuit Issues Key Ruling on Freight Broker Liability in Trucking Industry

Legal Updates for Trucking & Transportation Liability

July 14, 2025

by Vincent E. Cononico

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit handed down a significant ruling for the trucking industry on July 8, 2025. The Court’s ruling in Cox v. Total Quality Logistics, Inc., No. 24-3599 will impact how claims against freight brokers are assessed in the Sixth Circuit, which constitutes Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan and Tennessee.

Many district courts in the Sixth Circuit have held that common law negligent hiring or supervision claims against freight brokers for personal injuries or deaths caused by commercial motor carriers were preempted by the 1994 Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA). The FAAAA preempts state law claims that relate to the service of any broker with respect to the transportation of property. Those same district courts have also rejected the application of the FAAAA’s safety exception, which provides that state law claims are not preempted if they apply to the "safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.”

In the Cox decision, the Sixth Circuit found that the district courts have been wrong about the safety exception and reversed the decision of the lower court, holding that “…where a negligent hiring claim against a broker substantively concerns motor vehicles and motor vehicle safety, that claim is within ‘the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.’” Therefore, in the Sixth Circuit, freight brokers will no longer have the protection of the FAAAA’s preemption provision and state law claims will be allowed to proceed against them.

The Cox decision will not be the final word on this issue. There is a conflict among the federal circuits as to the application of the safety exception, and it is very likely that the issue will be eventually decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.   


 

Legal Update for Trucking & Transportation Liability – July 14,  2025, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Appellate Division Affirms Recreational Immunity for County Under Landowners' Liability Act

In a recent unpublished decision in Matthew Kuzma, etc. v. Middlesex County Parks Department, et al., the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed summary judgment in favor of Middlesex County Parks Department, holding that the county was immune from liability under New Jersey's Landowners' Liability Act (LLA), notwithstanding its failure to plead the immunity as an affirmative defense in its answer to the Complaint. The case arose from injuries sustained by fourteen-year-old plaintiff, Matthew Kuzma, while playing basketball at Spring Lake Park in South Plainfield on August 23, 2019. The plaintiff observed a crack in the basketball court before beginning to play but did not consider it dangerous. During the game, his foot became caught in the crack, causing him to fall and suffer a significant ankle injury. The plaintiff alleged that the injury resulted in ongoing physical limitations and deprived him of the opportunity to play collegiate basketball. The plaintiff filed suit alleging that the defendants negligently maintained the basketball court. Although the county did not assert LLA immunity as an affirmative defense in its answers, it later moved for summary judgment on that basis. The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the county had waived the defense by failing to plead it. The county maintained that the plaintiff had received sufficient notice of its intent to rely on the LLA through discovery and therefore suffered no unfair surprise or prejudice. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment, concluding that the county should be permitted to invoke statutory immunity notwithstanding its failure to formally plead the defense. Relying heavily on the New Jersey Supreme Court's guidance in Arias v. Cnty. of Bergen, holding a county park was subject to the immunity of the LLA, the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the county's failure to plead LLA immunity did not preclude reliance on the defense under the circumstances presented. The court determined that the plaintiff had received adequate notice of the immunity claim through discovery and that permitting the defense furthered the public-policy objectives embodied in the LLA. In affirming dismissal, the Appellate Division acknowledged the seriousness of the plaintiff's injury and the general societal interest in maintaining parks and recreational facilities in a safe condition. However, the court emphasized that both the legislature and the New Jersey Supreme Court have expressed a clear policy choice to limit liability for public and private landowners who make recreational property available for public use. The decision reinforces the courts' continuing adherence to the Landowners' Liability Act and the principle that recreational lands and facilities should be broadly protected from liability exposure, even in cases involving significant personal injuries.