Freight rarely moves through a single company. A shipper has goods to transport, a broker arranges the transportation, and a motor carrier actually hauls the load. When a Georgia-based trucking company is involved in a crash, an injured party may look beyond the carrier and the driver to the broker that selected the carrier and the shipper that arranged the shipment. This guide explains the legal exposure brokers and shippers can face for negligent hiring of trucking companies.
The roles in a freight transaction
A motor carrier is the company that owns or operates the trucks and physically transports the goods. A broker is an intermediary that arranges for the transportation of property by a motor carrier but does not itself transport the goods. A shipper is the party whose goods are being moved. These roles are defined under federal transportation law, and a single company can sometimes act in more than one role.
The negligent hiring or negligent selection theory
Negligent hiring, in this context often called negligent selection, is a state law tort claim. The theory is that a broker or shipper that selects a motor carrier owes a duty of ordinary care in that selection, and that choosing a carrier that is unfit, unsafe, or unqualified can be a breach of that duty. If the chosen carrier then causes a crash because of the very unfitness the broker or shipper should have screened for, the broker or shipper may share responsibility for the resulting harm.
The claim is distinct from vicarious liability. It does not depend on treating the carrier as an employee. It is based on the broker’s or shipper’s own conduct in making the selection. Relevant considerations can include the carrier’s federal safety rating, its inspection and crash history, its operating authority, and its insurance, all of which are reflected in publicly available federal data.
Federal preemption and the FAAAA
For years a major legal question was whether the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, known as the FAAAA, preempted negligent selection claims against brokers. The FAAAA bars states from enforcing laws related to a broker’s prices, routes, or services, but it contains a safety exception that preserves the states’ authority to regulate motor vehicle safety.
The United States Supreme Court resolved the broker question in 2026 in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC. The Court held unanimously that state law negligent selection claims against freight brokers are not preempted by the FAAAA, because requiring a broker to use ordinary care in selecting a carrier concerns the safety of motor vehicles and therefore falls within the statute’s safety exception. The practical effect is that a broker can be sued under state negligence law for negligently selecting an unsafe carrier, and that holding applies nationwide, including to claims arising in Georgia.
The decision addressed brokers directly. Shippers have raised the FAAAA as a defense as well, and the reasoning that common law duties of care fall within the safety exception has implications beyond brokers, but the contours of shipper liability continue to develop and depend heavily on the specific facts of each transaction.
Shipper exposure specifically
A shipper that simply hands goods to a broker or carrier and exercises no control over how the transportation is performed is in a different position from one that takes an active role. Shipper liability theories in trucking cases have included negligent selection of the carrier or broker, negligent loading of the cargo when the shipper loaded the truck, and, in some circumstances, vicarious liability where the shipper exercised significant control over the carrier’s operations. Whether a shipper faces exposure turns on what the shipper actually did and knew, not merely on its status as the owner of the goods.
How Georgia negligence principles apply
A negligent selection claim litigated in Georgia is analyzed under Georgia negligence law. The injured party must establish a duty of care in the selection, a breach of that duty, and that the breach was a proximate cause of the harm. Causation is a meaningful hurdle: the injured party generally must connect the carrier’s unfitness to the crash, showing that a reasonably careful selection process would have revealed the problem and that the problem contributed to the collision.
Georgia’s apportionment statute, O.C.G.A. 51-12-33, then governs how fault is allocated. The trier of fact assesses the percentage of fault of each party, and in a multi-defendant case damages are apportioned according to those percentages. A broker or shipper found partly at fault for negligent selection would be responsible for its apportioned share.
Practical evidence in these claims
Negligent selection claims rely heavily on what information was available about the carrier at the time of the selection. Federal safety data, the carrier’s safety rating, recorded violations, crash history, and the status of its operating authority and insurance are common sources. Internal records of the broker’s or shipper’s own vetting practices, contracts, and communications are obtained through discovery and can show whether the selection met the standard of ordinary care.
Summary
Brokers and shippers can face legal exposure for negligently selecting an unsafe Georgia-based trucking company. After the Supreme Court’s 2026 decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, negligent selection claims against freight brokers are not preempted by the FAAAA and may proceed under state negligence law. Shipper exposure depends on the shipper’s actual role in the transaction. In Georgia, these claims are governed by ordinary negligence principles, require proof of duty, breach, and causation, and are subject to the apportionment of fault under O.C.G.A. 51-12-33.
Disclaimer
This article is provided strictly for general educational and informational purposes. It is intended to explain how Georgia law works as a matter of public legal education, and it does not constitute legal advice, a legal opinion, or a recommendation about any particular course of action. Reading this article, or contacting the website on which it appears, does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and any law firm, attorney, or author.
The law changes over time. Statutes, regulations, court rules, and judicial decisions discussed here may have been amended, repealed, superseded, or reinterpreted after the date of publication, and citations to specific code sections or cases reflect the law only as it was understood when this article was written. The application of any legal principle also depends heavily on the specific facts and circumstances of an individual matter, and outcomes vary from case to case.
For these reasons, no one should rely on this article as a substitute for advice from a licensed Georgia attorney who can review the particular facts involved. The author and publisher make no warranty, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or applicability of the information provided, and disclaim any liability for any action taken or not taken based on this content.