.

Case Law Alerts

Supreme Court Addresses Conflicts Between Federal and State Law Regarding Negligent Hiring Claims Against Freight Brokers

Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC et al., No. 24-1238 (U.S. Filed Oct. 3, 2025)

April 1, 2026

by Charles L. Sutter

This case arises from a collision on an Illinois highway between a motorist and a tractor-trailer operated by a driver employed by the defendant, Caribe. The plaintiff brought suit, alleging a variety of claims, including negligent hiring and vicarious liability. However, rather than limit the application of negligent hiring to Caribe, the plaintiff attempted to extend this argument to the defendant freight broker, C.H. Robinson Worldwide by arguing that Robinson had negligently selected Caribe as the freight carrier.

Robinson moved to dismiss the negligent hiring claims pursuant to Section 14510(c)(1) of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994, as the language of that statute prohibits state suits against brokers “relat[ing] to a price, route, or service” and “with respect to the transportation of property”. The District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, stating that the safety exception of Section 14501(c)(2)(A) permitted such claims, as it preserves “safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.” On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled in favor of defendant Robinson, ruling that “the FAAAA preempts state law claims that a freight broker negligently hiring a motor carrier.”

Given that a conflict presently exists between rulings on this issue from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth and Ninth Circuits and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits, the Supreme Court granted certiorari on October 3, 2025.

The Supreme Court heard oral argument on March 6, 2026, and has yet to issue a decision.

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In a recent unpublished decision in Matthew Kuzma, etc.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.