On June 27, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari (elected to not review) in C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. v. Allen Miller, in a case where an individual suffered serious, permanent injuries due to the unsafe actions of a semi-tractor trailer driver AND the negligent hiring of said company by the transportation broker, C.H. Robinson. Without the U.S. Supreme Court review, the current Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling stands: injured parties can recover damages from not only truck carriers, but also third parties including transportation brokers and forwarders.
What happened
The story begins early December 2016, when a commercial semi-trailer carrier, hired by transportation broker C.H. Robinson to haul shipments for Costco, lost control on an icy patch on I-80 near Elko, Nevada. C.H. Robinson had hired a trucking company owned by Kuwar Singh, known as RT Service and Rheas Trans (“RT Service”). The driver of the semi-tractor trailer, Ronel Singh, was an employee of RT Service at the time of the collision. The truck careened over the median, overturned and blocked oncoming vehicle traffic.
Private motorist Allen Miller, then just 25 years old, was driving in the oncoming traffic lane; he was unable to avoid the truck that lay in his driving path. He crashed into the truck, suffering severe and permanent spinal injuries that rendered him quadriplegic.
Initial Case Filing: U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
Miller’s legal team brought suit (Miller v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, claiming that the transportation broker was responsible for this tragedy as well as RT Service and Costco in June 2017. Miller’s lawsuit claims that C.H. Robinson was partly responsible for the crash through negligence in hiring RT Service. The plaintiff’s case alleged that C.H. Robinson “had a duty to select a competent contractor to transport” the load, and that it breached this duty to Miller when they hired RT Services.
Through discovery, it was found that the trucking carrier, RT Service, has a shocking history of safety violations. During routine, on-road inspections, over 40% of their fleet was found to be in violation of the law (twice the national average). The company had been cited repeatedly for “hours of service violations”, as well as falsifying log books (see 49 CFR § 395.8).
According to an article in Transport Topics, “Miller has alleged in court documents that the carrier hired by C.H. Robinson was a chameleon carrier in 2014, and C.H. Robinson should have seen several ‘red flags’ that should have triggered C.H. Robinson to further investigate RT Service.” (A “chameleon carrier” is defined as a company that routinely renames and reapplies for new-company standing with the USDOT to avoid its financial responsibilities, including government fines, insurance payments, and legal fees. This is a common tactic among truck carriers that, due to a combination of poor corporate oversight and insufficient insurance, cannot operate legally.)
By July 2018, defendant C.H. Robinson moved for summary judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), arguing that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (“FAAAA”) preempts Miller’s negligence claims. According to 49 U.S. Code § 1450, Federal law trumps “state law, regulation or other provision … related to a price, route or service of any motor carrier … or broker.” C.H. Robinson’s argument was that by making it responsible for the actions of the carrier, it would affect the three-headed limits at the heart of FAAAA.
This 49 U.S. Code § 1450, however, did add in a safety exception that the Federal law “shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a state with respect to motor vehicles.” In essence, state law supersedes Federal law when it comes to safety issues with motor vehicles. C.H. Robinson argued that Miller’s safety exception claim does not satisfy the “with respect to motor vehicles” portion of the exception.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona ruled in favor of the defendant, C.H. Robinson. The grounds:
- 49 U.S. Code § 1450 preempts a private-party negligence claim, with Federal law dictating. According to Federal law: “state or political subdivision [shall not enact] or [enforce] any rule or law against transportation brokers relating to intrastate rates, routes, or services.”
- Miller sought to use the safety exception of 49 U.S. Code § 1450; the U.S. District Court determined that C.H. Robinson’s services did not fall within the exception for the safety regulation authority of a state with respect to motor vehicles.
Miller settled with the remaining defendants, and then appealed C.H. Robinson’s dismissal.
Appealed Ruling: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
The case was heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (“Ninth Circuit Court”); on September 28, 2020, the court issued an opinion that overturned the lower court’s ruling. The Ninth Circuit Court determined that Miller’s claim was “related to” the broker services provided by C.H. Robinson, and held that the safety exception DID apply in this case. In essence, local safety laws preempted FAAAA.
Here are the basics:
- The plaintiff’s claim had the requisite “connection with” motor vehicles because it arose out of a motor vehicle accident. Negligence claims against brokers, to the extent that they arise out of motor vehicle accidents, have the requisite “connection with” motor vehicles. Therefore, the safety exception applied to plaintiff’s claim against C.H. Robinson.
- In enacting the safety exception per 49 U.S. Code § 1450, Congress intended to preserve the States’ broad power over safety, a power that included the ability to regulate conduct not only through legislative and administrative enactments, but also through common law damages.
- With the “safety exception” applicable in this case, plaintiffs’ successfully argued that any common law torts related to safety (e.g., negligent hiring), fall within the confines of State law.
- The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered that Miller could proceed with his claims against C.H. Robinson. Miller’s trial is scheduled to begin on January 9, 2023.
The Ninth Circuit Court decision will likely lead to state-by-state “duty of care” laws. This will require trucking brokers to perform adequate due diligence on the trucking carriers they contract with, by ensuring that the trucking companies hire safe drivers who are compliant with CDL training requirements. To the degree that they relate to safety, common law torts, like negligent hiring, are now an exception to the FAAAA safety preemption.
U.S. Supreme Court denies certiorari: C.H. Robinson v. Miller
In April of 2021, C.H. Robinson filed a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, requesting the nation’s highest court to review and overturn the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision (C.H. Robinson v. Miller). On May 24, 2022, the Solicitor General filed a brief recommending the Supreme Court deny this request, stating that the safety exception should stand as is, with state law/authority taking precedence in this case. On June 27, 2022, the Supreme Court elected to not review the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Decision. The current decision stands.
Case significance
- Interstate trucking brokers are not exempt from state safety rules and regulations.
- Common law torts (like negligent driving cases, negligent hiring or negligent retention) fall within the safety exception dictated by state law.
- Transportation brokers can be found responsible/liable when a subcontracted trucking company or truck driver acts with negligence.
This case signifies a sea change within the industry; no longer can trucking brokers cut corners and hire irresponsible motor carriers/drivers with poor safety records, hiding under the protection of outdated federal law. Those injured in truck crashes may have additional avenues of legal recourse against not only the carrier, but the transportation broker and forwarder in certain cases. We hope that the Miller case will have a positive impact on the trucking industry, as more trucking companies, transportation brokers and other affiliated parties take seriously road safety in America.