Allen Miller v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.
976 F.3d 1016
| 9th Cir. | 2020Background
- Allen Miller was struck and rendered quadriplegic when a semi-tractor trailer brokered by C.H. Robinson crossed the median and collided with his vehicle near Elko, Nevada; the truck was operated by RT Service/Rheas Trans and driver Ronel Singh.
- Miller sued C.H. Robinson for negligent selection of an unsafe motor carrier, alleging the broker knew or should have known of safety ‘‘red flags’’ (safety violations, high out-of-service rates, hours-of-service and logbook violations).
- C.H. Robinson moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), arguing the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) preempts Miller’s state-law negligence claim as ‘‘related to’’ broker services.
- The district court granted judgment for C.H. Robinson, finding the claim ‘‘related to’’ broker services and that the FAAAA’s safety exception did not save Miller’s claim.
- The Ninth Circuit held Miller’s claim is ‘‘related to’’ broker services but reversed because the court concluded the FAAAA’s safety exception preserves state common-law safety claims and that Miller’s negligence claim is ‘‘with respect to motor vehicles.’'
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miller’s negligent-selection claim is preempted by the FAAAA as "related to" broker services | Miller: claim is a traditional state tort and not meaningfully different from state laws previously held not preempted | C.H. Robinson: claim targets broker services (carrier selection) and therefore has a forbidden connection with broker services | Held: Majority — claim is "related to" broker services (preemption applies absent an exception) |
| Whether the FAAAA safety exception (49 U.S.C. §14501(c)(2)(A)) covers state common-law tort claims | Miller: safety exception preserves common-law tort remedies that protect road safety | C.H. Robinson: exception only covers positive legislative/regulatory enactments, not private tort suits | Held: Majority — safety exception encompasses at least some common-law tort claims; thus common-law safety claims can be saved from preemption |
| Whether Miller’s negligence claim is "with respect to motor vehicles" (i.e., falls within the safety exception) | Miller: claim arises from a motor-vehicle accident and thus has the required connection to motor vehicles | C.H. Robinson: broker’s role is sufficiently attenuated (no ownership or direct control over vehicle/driver) so the claim is not "with respect to motor vehicles" | Held: Majority — negligence claims against brokers that arise out of motor-vehicle accidents have the requisite connection and fall within the safety exception; concurrence dissents on this holding |
Key Cases Cited
- Californians For Safe & Competitive Dump Truck Transportation v. Mendonca, 152 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 1998) (prevailing-wage law not preempted where effect on carrier services was indirect)
- Dilts v. Penske Logistics, LLC, 769 F.3d 637 (9th Cir. 2014) (California meal/rest-break laws not preempted as background employment rules)
- California Trucking Ass'n v. Su, 903 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2018) (common-law independent-contractor test not preempted)
- Dan's City Used Cars, Inc. v. Pelkey, 569 U.S. 251 (2013) ("related to" means having a connection with or reference to rates, routes, or services)
- Northwest, Inc. v. Ginsberg, 572 U.S. 273 (2014) (ADA preemption of claims affecting air-carrier services informs FAAAA analysis)
- American Trucking Ass'ns v. City of Los Angeles, 569 U.S. 641 (2013) (distinguishing state regulatory action from proprietary market participation under the FAAAA)
- City of Columbus v. Ours Garage & Wrecker Serv., Inc., 536 U.S. 424 (2002) (safety exception construed broadly to preserve traditional local safety authority)
- Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (1996) (common-law duties enforce general standards; relevant to preemption interpretive principles)