Southern District of Texas Holds that Negligent Hiring/Entrustment/Monitoring and Gross Negligence Claims Against Old Dominion are Preempted by the FAAAA and Not Saved by the “Safety Exception”

On August 12, 2024, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas held that Plaintiffs’ claims for negligent hiring, entrustment, and monitoring of a motor carrier, and gross negligence were: 1) preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (“FAAAA”) found in 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1), and 2) not saved by the “safety exception” found in 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(2)(A). See Farfan v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., No. 4:23-CV-3470, ECF No. 23 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 12, 2024). 

In Farfan, the freight broker, Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. (“Old Dominion”), contracted with a motor carrier, Just Van, to transport a load. An accident occurred with the plaintiffs’ decedent during transit. The plaintiffs filed a wrongful death lawsuit against numerous defendants, including Old Dominion, claiming it negligently hired/entrusted/monitored Just Van and that Old Dominion’s actions amounted to gross negligence. Old Dominion moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ negligence claims, arguing the claims were preempted by the FAAAA and not saved by the “safety exception.”

Before addressing FAAAA preemption, the district court first analyzed whether Old Dominion was acting as a motor carrier—and not a broker—at the time of the accident. The district court held that, even though Old Dominion possesses operating authority to serve as a motor carrier, this “does not mean it was operating under its motor carrier license here.” The district court relied on the fact that Old Dominion contracted with Just Van and the language of the written agreement itself where Old Dominion was identified as a “broker” in ruling that plaintiffs’ claim that Old Dominion was serving as the motor carrier should be dismissed. 

The district court also agreed with Old Dominion that the FAAAA preempted the plaintiffs’ negligence claims and that the claims did not fall within the “safety exception by primarily relying upon Ye v. GlobalTranz Enterprises, Inc., 74 F.4th 453 (7th Cir. 2023) and Hamby v. Wilson, No. 6:23-CV-249-JDK, 2024 WL 2303850 (E.D. Tex. May 21, 2024). 

We continue to recommend that freight brokers assert the FAAAA preemption defense early, file dispositive motions, and consider filing appeals where appropriate so that other state and federal appellate courts decide this issue, and the Supreme Court of the United States may be inclined to accept a writ of certiorari.