Shawn Montgomery, who lost part of his leg in a semi tractor-trailer crash in 2017, has been granted the right to sue C.H. Robinson, the country’s largest freight broker, by a unanimous Supreme Court decision. The ruling exposes how the company prioritized profit by putting a driver with "serious red flags" on the road, a practice enabled by decades of lax federal oversight in the logistics industry.
Montgomery’s parked vehicle was hit by a speeding truck driver in the ninth year since the incident. His lawsuit alleges C.H. Robinson should share liability because it hired the carrier despite the trucker having been cited for careless driving in another crash months earlier, and the carrier itself being involved in at least three crashes within a five-month span.
The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision, delivered by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, overturned a lower-court ruling that had favored C.H. Robinson. The high court found Montgomery’s claims can move forward under an exception for safety regulations, potentially increasing liability for freight brokers across the industry.
The Cost of Unchecked Capital
For years, freight brokers like C.H. Robinson have operated with "virtually no meaningful federal safety oversight regarding how they select carriers," according to Brian Watt, who runs a freight logistics company in Florida. Watt noted that while there are tougher standards for shipments out of ports and on railroads, highway shipments face fewer restrictions, allowing brokers to prioritize the "cheapest and fastest option" over safety.
This systemic lack of oversight has allowed companies to externalize the costs of their profit-driven decisions onto workers and the public. The Transportation Intermediaries Association, representing the industry, called the Supreme Court’s decision "deeply disappointing," with its president and CEO, Chris Burroughs, comparing it to asking travel agents to evaluate airline safety, a statement that downplays the broker’s role in selecting dangerous carriers.
The Trump administration and corporate giants like Amazon had argued against allowing the suit, claiming it would expose logistics companies to liability under a "patchwork" of state laws. This argument sought to protect accumulated wealth by limiting corporate accountability for the consequences of their operational choices.
Industry Defends Profit Over Safety
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a concurrence joined by Justice Samuel Alito, warned that the decision could increase insurance costs for freight brokers, which might then "cascade through the economy" and result in higher prices for consumers. This common corporate argument attempts to shift the burden of safety onto the working class through increased costs, rather than accepting reduced profit margins.
C.H. Robinson, based in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, highlighted another part of Kavanaugh’s concurrence, which stated the decision does not mean brokers will be "routinely subject" to lawsuits. Dorothy Capers, the company’s chief legal officer, stated, "We will keep working with policymakers, advocates, carriers, our customers, and others across the industry to strengthen the national safety system and advance practices that reduce accidents on America’s roads," a statement that deflects from immediate corporate responsibility.
Montgomery’s appeal was supported by more than two dozen states, which argued that a win for him would help bolster safety in an industry responsible for moving billions of tons of goods across billions of miles every year. This collective action by states represents a challenge to the prevailing corporate drive for deregulation.
State's Limited Response
The Transportation Department has recently begun "cracking down" on the trucking industry over the past year, attempting to force unqualified drivers, trucking companies, and schools out of the industry. However, this action comes after years of minimal oversight, as highlighted by Watt, and does not address the fundamental structural issue of brokers prioritizing profit over public and worker safety. Such reform efforts, while appearing to address symptoms, often fall short of challenging the underlying mechanisms of surplus extraction that drive these dangerous practices.