Transportation Law Hub

In a recent ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, aligned with the Ninth Circuit, holding a freight broker liable for negligent hiring of “unsafe” motor carrier.  In so ruling, the appellate court disagrees with opinions of the Seventh and Eleventh circuits.

On July 8, the appellate court issued its opinion, reversing a district court’s decision that dismissed a cause of action on the ground the state claim was preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA). In Cox v. Total Quality Logistics, Inc. No. 24-3599 (6^th Cir. 2025).  et al. the appellate court held a broker has a duty to adhere to a basic standard of care when hiring a motor carrier. 

The initial complaint alleged the broker ignored “publicly available red flags,” including the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s Safety Management System, which reported carrier had an “overwhelming number of drivers that were deemed illegal to be on the road” and “more than 7 out of every 10 of its trucks were not allowed to legally be on the roadway”.  

49 USC 14501(c)(1) preempts a state’s “law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of any … broker… with respect to the transportation of property.” However, the Act includes a “safety exception” which is intended to prevent the restriction of a state’s preexisting and traditional state police power over safety.

The appellate agreed in their opinion that the district did not err in finding that the state law claim for negligent hiring falls within the scope of § 14501(c)(1). However, the appellate court then looked at § 14501(c)(2)(A), regarding the safety exception of FAAAA, which shields from preemption, “safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.”  

The appellate court then connected some dots (aligning it with the Ninth Circuit), concluding “safety regulatory authority” encompasses state laws that regulate motor vehicle safety, including certain common law claims.

In Cox, the appellate court held that a broker’s hiring of a motor carrier concerns motor vehicle safety and is therefore within the “safety regulatory authority of a state with respect to motor vehicles.” The appellate court held the plaintiff’s negligent hiring claim enforces “a standard of care on brokers which in turn, requires brokers to do their due diligence [to ensure] that they are hiring safe motor carriers.”

The appellate court did not include in its analysis the disclaimer on the U.S. Department of Transportation website which states, in pertinent part, “Readers should not draw conclusions about a carrier’s overall safety condition simply based on the data displayed in the system. Unless a motor carrier has received an UNSATISFACTORY safety rating … it is authorized to operate on the Nation’s roadways.”