For a third time, the Supreme Court has shot down an opportunity to resolve conflicting rulings across the country dealing with whether a broker is liable for a crash involving a motor carrier it hired.
On Monday, Jan. 13, the Supreme Court declined hearing the case regarding broker liability. The petition asked the Supreme Court to overturn an 11th Circuit ruling taking Total Quality Logistics off the hook in a personal injury case. Although the high court’s denial keeps the broker’s win intact, it also keeps in place a patchwork of appellate court rulings that favor brokers in some jurisdictions but favor plaintiffs in others.
At the center of TQL’s case and the Supreme Court petition is whether a broker can be held liable in a wrongful death or personal injury claim involving a motor carrier it contracted with. Specifically, can a broker be on the hook for negligent hiring when a truck driver it hired is involved in a crash?
One federal court of appeals has answered “yes” to that question, while another has rejected the idea.
In September 2020, the Ninth Circuit determined in Miller v. C.H. Robinson that a broker can be held responsible for negligent hiring. C.H. Robinson petitioned the Supreme Court to reverse that ruling, which the high court denied.
Nearly three years later, the Seventh Circuit disagreed with the ruling, finding broker GlobalTranz not liable in a negligent hiring case. Plaintiffs in that case asked the Supreme Court to weigh in, citing issues with a split circuit ruling on the issue of broker liability. Again, the high court punted on the case.
Last year, the 11th Circuit sided with TQL and the Seventh Circuit in an unpublished opinion.
Like in the GlobalTranz case, plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court to settle the score on the issue of broker liability. But unlike in the GlobalTranz case, the winning party, TQL, agreed with the plaintiffs – urging the high court to resolve the conflicting circuit rulings.
In its reply brief to the Supreme Court, TQL acknowledged that the issue of broker liability “is exceedingly important to the national transportation industry, and this case is a suitable vehicle for resolving it.” Despite the complementing pleas from both sides, the high court still refuses to address the issue, without explanation.
Consequently, similar future cases under the Ninth Circuit’s massive jurisdiction (Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington) will likely favor the plaintiffs. Meanwhile, the scales tip in favor of brokers in cases within the Seventh Circuit (Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin), one of the smallest circuits.
Cases outside the Ninth Circuit or Seventh Circuit can draw from either court’s decision, creating uncertainty in personal injury cases involving a broker. Since the 11th Circuit’s opinion on the matter was not published, district courts under its jurisdiction are not bound to that ruling. A motion to publish the opinion was denied. LL
Credit: Source link
