Middle District of Georgia Holds that Negligent Hiring/Selection/Entrustment, and Joint Venture Claims Against Freight Broker are Preempted by the FAAAA and Not Saved by the “Safety Exception”

On September 27, 2024, the Middle District of Georgia held that Plaintiff’s claims for joint venture and negligent hiring, retention, entrustment, supervision, and training against a freight broker 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 Pinder v. Lancer Ins. Co., No. 7:23-CV-53 (LAG), 2024 WL 4335913 (Sept. 27, 2024).

In Pinder, the two alleged freight brokers, Magellan Transport Logistics, Inc. (“MTL”) and Wal-Mart Stores East, LP (“Wal-Mart”) hired/selected a motor carrier, Tristan Logistics LLC (“Tristan”), to transport a load. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against numerous defendants, including MTL and Wal-Mart, claiming they negligently hired, retained, supervised, trained, and entrusted the vehicle to Tristan, in addition to claims of joint venture and vicarious liability. MTL and Wal-Mart filed dispositive motions on plaintiff’s negligence and joint venture claims, arguing the claims were preempted by the FAAAA and not saved by the “safety exception.”

The Middle District of Georgia granted MTL and Wal-Mart’s dispositive motions finding that the “safety exception” to the FAAAA did not save plaintiff’s negligent hiring/selection and joint venture claims against Tristan by primarily relying upon Aspen Am. Ins. Co. v. Landstar Ranger, Inc., 65 F.4th 1261 (11th Cir. 2023). 

Importantly, the Middle District of Georgia also ruled, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff’s vicarious liability claims against MTL and Wal-Mart should be dismissed because there were no facts to establish that they exercised control over Tristan so that an agency relationship was created. 

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.