Source: https://martinhelms.com/trucking-accidents/the-broker/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 00:37:01+00:00

Document:
In Alabama, our courts have indicated that one may be held liable for the negligent hiring of any independent contractor; but, there has been no official adoption of §411 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. In states which follow §411, a broker may be liable for injuries caused by an incompetent trucking company hired by the broker if (1) injuries were caused by the incompetence of the trucking company and (2) the broker should have known that the trucking company was incompetent prior to hiring it for the haul. See Jones v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 558 F.Supp. 2d. 630 (2008); see also Owens v. Anthony, 2011 WL 6056407. The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia held in Jones v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. that a broker/third-party logistics provider could be subject to liability for the negligent failure to exercise reasonable care in the selection of a competent motor carrier to make a haul. The Court in Jones stated that the exercise of reasonable care for a broker when hiring a trucking company to make a haul includes the utilization of any information which is readily available to the broker relative to the competency of the trucking company to safely transport goods on our highways. So, per the decision in Jones, brokers/third-party logistics providers must take into consideration information which is readily available concerning a trucking company’s competency (i.e. information about the trucking company which can be obtained from a quick search of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s “FMCSA’s” website – which has information on all trucking companies) before hiring the trucking company to haul goods.
Recently, Martin & Helms represented the family of a man who was killed in a wreck caused by a trucking company who had a long history of traffic violations and violations of the FMCSA’s vehicle maintenance and fatigued driving safety regulations. Per the investigating state troopers, the fatal wreck was caused by driver fatigue, combined with vehicle safety maintenance problems including inoperable brakes and bad tires on both the tractor and trailer. The at-fault trucking company was hauling a load on behalf of a broker at the time of the wreck.
On behalf of our clients, Martin & Helms filed lawsuits against both the trucking company and the broker, C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. In the case against the broker we were able to prove that a quick search of the FMCSA’s website would have shown the broker that the trucking company had recently been involved in wrecks and had failing safety scores assigned by the FMCSA in the categories of “Unsafe Driving” and “Vehicle Maintenance” for ten consecutive months before the wreck. We were also able to show that internal documents maintained by C.H. Robinson showed that the trucking company had been using old, worn tractors and trailers for several years, which frequently broke down resulting in canceled hauls and that several complaints had been recorded by C.H. Robinson employees concerning the trucking company’s multiple vehicle breakdowns. Based on this evidence, we argued on behalf of our client that C.H. Robinson knew or should have known of the trucking company’s incompetence in the area of vehicle maintenance safety and was, thus, negligent for hiring the trucking company. The U.S. District Court agreed that there was substantial enough evidence of the trucking company’s incompetency and C.H. Robinson’s knowledge of such incompetency to allow the case to proceed forward to trial against C.H. Robinson for the negligent hiring of an incompetent trucking company. See the memorandum opinion (link to memorandum opinion.) entered by the Honorable Elizabeth K. Dillon, U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Virginia, on July 27, 2017. The case settled for a confidential amount before trial.
Another potential theory of liability against brokers in trucking cases has involved liability claims under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The court in Sperl v. C.H. Robinson Inc. determined that an agency relationship existed between the broker, C.H. Robinson, and the truck driver based upon extensive evidence presented by the plaintiff of the control that C.H. Robinson maintained over the driver. Therefore, in the Sperl case, C.H. Robinson was held to be vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the actions of the at-fault truck driver.
Recently in the case of Riley v. C.H. Robinson Co., et al. (link to document saved as “Riley v. CHR memo and opinion re MSJ”) in the Eastern District of Missouri the Court denied C.H. Robinson’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of agency in a broker liability case on the grounds that there was sufficient evidence to create a question of fact as to whether C.H. Robinson had maintained a level of control over the trucking company to create an employer/employee relationship.

References: §411
 §411
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.