District Court of South Carolina Holds that Vicarious Liability and Negligent Hiring/Selection Claims Against Freight Broker are Preempted by the FAAAA and Not Saved by the “Safety Exception”

On November 15, 2024, the District Court of South Carolina, Spartanburg Division, held that Plaintiff’s claims for vicarious liability and negligent hiring and selection 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 Fueling v. S&J Logistics LLC, No. 7:22-cv-00905-JDA, ECF No. 238, (D.S.C. Nov. 15, 2024).

In Fueling, the freight broker, Echo Global Logistics, Inc. (“Echo”) hired/selected a motor carrier, S&J Logistics LLC (“S&J”), to transport a load. The plaintiff filed a wrongful death lawsuit against numerous defendants, including Echo, claiming it was vicariously liable for S&J and its driver’s negligence and negligent for hiring and selecting S&J. Echo filed a motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s vicarious liability and negligence claims, arguing the claims were preempted by the FAAAA and not saved by the “safety exception.”

The District Court of South Carolina granted Echo summary judgment finding that the “safety exception” to the FAAAA did not save plaintiff’s vicarious liability and negligent hiring/selection claims against Echo by primarily relying upon Ye v. GlobalTranz Enterprises, Inc., 74 F.4th 453 (7th Cir. 2023) and Aspen Am. Ins. Co. v. Landstar Ranger, Inc., 65 F.4th 1261 (11th Cir. 2023), and rejecting Miller v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 976 F.3d 1016, 1020, 1023–25 (9th Cir. 2020). The Court held that:

Accordingly, rather than adopting the Ninth Circuit’s broad construction of the safety exception, this Court adopts the Seventh and Eleventh Circuit’s construction of the exception, narrowly construing its application to save only claims that have “a direct relationship to” motor vehicles. Because there is no direct link between motor vehicles and Echo’s alleged negligent hiring by failing to properly screen S&J in its capacity as a transportation broker, the Court concludes the safety exception does not save Plaintiff’s negligence claims from FAAAA preemption.

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.