Perspective: After Montgomery, trucking needs a clear standard

The Supreme Court’s unanimous Montgomery v. Caribe ruling may have been well-intentioned, but it left a critical gap: it didn’t define what makes a carrier “unsafe” or establish clear guidelines for freight brokers’ carrier selection. The decision confirmed that brokers can face state-level liability for accidents involving carriers they hire, yet courts are left applying an inconsistent “reasonable carrier selection” standard with no uniform definition. Brokers operate in a legal gray area where plaintiffs can argue they did too little—or too much—when vetting carriers, while regulators and statutes provide no clear framework. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) holds the data and expertise to assess carrier risk, but around 90% of U.S. motor carriers lack an FMCSA safety rating, and even “Satisfactory” rated carriers may have troubling crash and violation histories. As of May 15, the national vehicle out-of-service rate stood at roughly 22%, meaning one in five inspected vehicles were taken off the road. Brokers are caught in an impossible position: relying solely on public data risks legal challenges for insufficient due diligence, while going beyond regulatory requirements could expose them to claims of overstepping their role. The result is a market where smaller brokers face crippling liability, insurance costs rise, and capacity tightens—all while the core issue of road safety remains unresolved. To break this cycle, FMCSA or Congress must step in to define clear vetting standards, giving brokers, carriers, and courts a predictable framework. Without this, the industry will continue to reward scale over safety, leaving consumers to bear the financial burden of an inefficient and legally precarious system.