Wins

A manufacturer hired GMSR’s client, a federally licensed freight broker, to book truck transportation for the manufacturer’s shipments.  The broker hired a federally licensed motor carrier to deliver one of the shipments.

The motor carrier furnished its own truck and hired a two-driver team to transport the load via a transcontinental trip.  During the trip, one of the drivers had a collision that seriously injured his co-driver.  The injured co-driver sued the broker for negligence.

The broker moved for summary judgment.  The co-driver opposed, arguing that any duty of care owed to him had to be determined under federal law governing brokers and motor carriers, including the Carmack Amendment.  According to the co-driver, the broker was a “de facto” carrier and therefore subject to federal non-delegable duties of care imposed on licensed carriers.  The trial court applied federal law, but ruled the broker was not a “carrier” subject to non-delegable duties and granted summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal affirmed.  Adopting GMSR’s arguments, the court held that California negligence principles, not federal law, governed the duty analysis.   Agreeing with GMSR, the court held that under the doctrine of Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, the broker had presumptively delegated to the carrier the duty of care to ensure safe working conditions for the carrier’s employees and contractors, including the injured co-driver.  Therefore, the broker owed no duty of care to the co-driver as a matter of law.

Click here to read the Court of Appeal’s opinion:  Hu v. XPO Logistics, LLC (2026) 117 Cal.App.5th 1197 [Second District, Division Five].