Yes, But The 2026 Supreme Court Ruling Only Removed One Major Barrier
A freight broker can potentially be held liable after a serious Texas truck accident, but simply arranging the shipment isn't enough.
The legal landscape changed significantly in May 2026 when the United States Supreme Court ruled that federal transportation law does not automatically block a state negligent-hiring claim against a freight broker accused of selecting an unsafe motor carrier.
For injured people and families, that means a broker can no longer rely on federal preemption as a blanket answer to every negligent-selection claim involving motor vehicle safety. But our Houston truck accident lawyers at Smith & Hassler know the next question matters just as much: What did the broker actually do wrong, and did Texas law impose a duty under those particular circumstances?
Montgomery Removed The Federal Preemption Shield
In Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, decided May 14, 2026, Shawn Montgomery suffered severe and permanent injuries after another tractor-trailer struck his truck on an Illinois highway. Freight broker C.H. Robinson Worldwide had selected the motor carrier hauling the load.
Montgomery alleged that the broker knew or should have known the carrier posed a serious safety risk. The carrier had a conditional federal safety rating and alleged deficiencies involving driver qualifications, hours of service, maintenance and crash history.
The lower courts dismissed the negligent-hiring claims under the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, commonly called the FAAAA. That law generally preempts certain state laws related to the prices, routes and services of motor carriers and brokers.
The Supreme Court unanimously reversed. It held that the FAAAA's safety exception allows a state negligent-hiring claim against a broker when the claim concerns the broker's selection of a motor carrier to operate a motor vehicle safely on the road.
That ruling resolved the federal preemption question that had divided courts around the country. It did not, however, establish that every broker involved in a truck accident is negligent.
The Broker's Actual Conduct Still Has To Support A Texas Negligence Claim
Once federal preemption is removed from the equation, the case turns back to the facts and the state-law negligence theory being asserted.
A broker may have a strong defense when it selected a properly authorized carrier, followed a reasonable vetting process, and had no meaningful information suggesting the carrier posed an unreasonable safety risk. A very different case may exist if the broker ignored obvious warning signs about the carrier or driver.
Those warning signs can involve driver qualifications, a history of safety problems, operating authority, insurance status or other information available when the load was assigned. Problems involving inexperienced or unqualified truck drivers can become particularly significant when the broker had information that raised concerns before selecting the carrier.
The question isn't simply whether the trucking company later caused a crash. The more serious issue is whether the broker acted unreasonably based on what it knew or could reasonably have discovered when it selected that carrier.
A Texas Supreme Court Decision Issued One Day Later Adds Another Layer
The timing of another major case is hard to ignore.
On May 15, 2026, one day after Montgomery, the Supreme Court of Texas decided In re Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., which also involved an upstream company accused of failing to investigate a motor carrier's safety history.
But Home Depot wasn't acting as the freight broker analyzed in Montgomery. It was a customer shipping ordinary goods through a federally regulated motor carrier.
A motorcyclist was killed in a collision with a Werner Enterprises tractor-trailer, and his family alleged Home Depot should have investigated Werner's safety history before choosing it to transport the company's goods. The Texas Supreme Court concluded that the facts alleged did not create a duty requiring this passive shipper to investigate the carrier's competence.
The court emphasized that Texas does not lightly impose responsibility on one party for the conduct of another and noted that the state Supreme Court has not definitively resolved the existence, elements, or scope of negligent hiring in every independent-contractor context.
That doesn't mean Home Depot eliminates broker claims after Montgomery. The cases addressed different defendants and different legal questions. But together they show why Texas freight broker liability remains highly fact-dependent rather than automatic.
Carrier Vetting Records Can Become Some Of The Most Important Evidence
Proving what a broker knew before a crash often requires evidence that won't appear in the police report or even in the trucking company's own file.
An investigation may focus on:
- Carrier Selection Records: Which carriers were considered, why one was selected, and whether the broker documented its decision.
- Federal Safety Information: Operating authority, safety ratings, inspection history and other FMCSA information available before the shipment.
- Internal Qualification Requirements: Whether the broker had its own carrier-vetting standards and followed them for this load.
- Prior Dealings With The Carrier: Complaints, safety concerns or other problems the broker may have learned about through earlier shipments.
- Contracts And Communications: Broker-carrier agreements, rate confirmations, emails, texts and other records showing how the carrier was chosen.
Obtaining that material may require formal discovery, which is one reason a prompt truck accident investigation can be so important when several companies were involved in moving the load.
Evidence Can Disappear Long Before A Lawsuit Reaches Discovery
Broker files aren't the only evidence that matters.
Commercial truck crashes can generate electronic logging records, GPS data, dispatch communications, maintenance records, dashcam footage, shipping documents, and data stored on the truck itself. Some of that information may be overwritten or lost if no one acts to preserve it.
We've discussed why timing matters in truck accident claims, particularly when trucking companies control records that may only be retained for limited periods. Early preservation demands can help prevent relevant information from disappearing before responsibility is fully understood.
Modern commercial vehicles also produce extensive electronic evidence. Telematics, GPS logs and other digital records can help reconstruct what the driver and carrier were doing before the collision and may also provide context for records exchanged among the broker, carrier and dispatcher.
A Carrier's Crash History Needs Context
A large number of prior crashes or violations can look alarming, but raw numbers aren't always enough to establish negligent selection.
The Texas Supreme Court made that point in Home Depot. The plaintiffs cited hundreds of reportable crashes involving Werner, but the court noted that an FMCSA-reportable crash doesn't necessarily mean the motor carrier caused it.
The more useful analysis asks what the safety information actually showed and whether it related to the danger that ultimately caused the wreck.
For example, a documented pattern involving driver qualifications may matter differently in a crash caused by an inadequately trained driver. Likewise, repeated hours-of-service problems may take on additional significance when the collision involves truck driver fatigue.
That connection between the warning sign and the eventual crash can be much more persuasive than simply pointing to a carrier's total number of violations.
Black Box And Telematics Data Can Show What Happened On The Road
A broker-liability claim focuses on carrier selection, but the underlying truck crash still has to be investigated.
Data from a truck's event data recorder, electronic logging device or other onboard systems may reveal speed, braking, engine activity, hours of service and other information about the moments before impact. Preserving truck black box data can help establish what actually happened rather than relying only on competing descriptions from the people involved.
That evidence can then be compared with the information the broker had when it selected the carrier. If a crash resulted from the same type of safety problem that appeared in the carrier's earlier record, the relationship between the selection decision and the collision may deserve much closer scrutiny.
Experts May Be Needed To Connect The Records To The Crash
Some broker and trucking-company records are technical enough that simply obtaining them isn't the end of the analysis.
Depending on the case, truck accident expert witnesses may review driver qualification files, inspection records, ELD information, carrier safety data or accident reconstruction evidence to explain whether particular safety failures contributed to the collision.
This can be especially important when the broker argues that a negative safety statistic was irrelevant, outdated, or unrelated to the eventual crash.
The Broker Is Only One Of Several Parties That May Be Responsible
A freight broker claim doesn't replace the more traditional claims that may exist against the driver or trucking company.
The driver may have caused the wreck by speeding, driving distracted, changing lanes unsafely, ignoring hours-of-service limits, or making another dangerous driving decision. The motor carrier may have its own responsibility involving hiring, training, supervision, maintenance or company policies.
Other entities may also become relevant depending on the crash, including a shipper, cargo-loading company, maintenance contractor, manufacturer or another commercial business. That's one reason Texas truck accident compensation can involve more than one insurance policy or responsible company.
The broker becomes another potential defendant only when the facts support liability for its own conduct in arranging the transportation.
Ignoring Known Safety Problems May Raise More Serious Questions
Most negligent-selection claims involve allegations of ordinary negligence. Some evidence, however, may raise the question of whether the conduct went further.
Texas imposes a much higher standard for gross negligence, which generally requires proof of an extreme degree of risk combined with actual awareness and conscious indifference. A bad carrier-selection decision doesn't automatically satisfy that standard.
But internal communications showing that a company recognized a serious safety danger and deliberately ignored it could become important evidence depending on the circumstances.
Montgomery Does Not Automatically Reopen Every Older Texas Case
Another point deserves clarification because the practical effect of a new Supreme Court decision can easily be overstated.
Before Montgomery, federal courts disagreed about whether the FAAAA preempted negligent-selection claims against freight brokers. Courts within Texas did not all approach the issue the same way either.
Montgomery now resolves the federal preemption issue for the type of motor-vehicle-safety claim addressed by the Supreme Court. But it doesn't automatically revive every lawsuit that was previously dismissed or eliminate other defenses available under Texas law.
Whether an older or pending claim can move forward depends on its procedural history, the allegations against the broker, applicable Texas law, and the available evidence.
Contact Our Houston Truck Accident Attorneys Today
When a catastrophic truck crash involves multiple companies, stopping the investigation with the driver can leave important questions unanswered. Our Houston truck accident attorneys investigate the entire chain behind a serious commercial vehicle accident, including the motor carrier and, when the facts support it, the broker and other companies involved in moving the shipment.
Smith & Hassler has represented injured Texans for more than 30 years and recovered more than $1 billion for our clients. Our case results include $2.3 million for a client in an 18-wheeler accident and $1.38 million for two clients who sustained traumatic brain injuries in another 18-wheeler collision, with one also suffering multiple fractures. **Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
We handle Texas truck accident cases on a contingency fee basis, so there's no fee unless we win. Contact us today for a free consultation.
"Smith & Hassler did an outstanding job representing me after I was rear-ended. He fought for a fair settlement and helped me navigate a difficult situation with professionalism and care. Thanks to his hard work, I received compensation that will help me start rebuilding my life." - M. J., ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐