Creagan v. Wal-Mart Transp., LLC
354 F. Supp. 3d 808
| N.D. Ohio | 2018Background
- On August 14, 2016 a nine-vehicle chain collision occurred on the Ohio Turnpike; plaintiffs (Creagan and Meadows) were among those injured.
- The tractor-trailer was driven by Chavan Carter, employed by Natex Group, hauling birdseed for Wal‑Mart pursuant to transportation arranged by broker Kirsch Transportation Services.
- Plaintiffs sued Kirsch and Wal‑Mart for negligent hiring and vicarious liability, alleging Kirsch and Wal‑Mart negligently selected Natex.
- Defendants moved: Wal‑Mart for summary judgment and Kirsch for judgment on the pleadings; Creagan moved to dismiss Kirsch's FAAAA preemption defense.
- The central legal question was whether negligent hiring and related state-law tort claims against a broker (and indirectly a shipper) are preempted by the FAAAA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether negligent hiring claims against a broker relating to a personal-injury collision are preempted by the FAAAA | Plaintiffs: personal-injury torts fall outside FAAAA preemption or are saved by the safety-regulatory exception | Defendants: negligent hiring challenges how the broker arranged transportation (a "service") and thus "relate to" broker services and are preempted | Court: Preempted — negligent hiring "relates to" broker services and is barred by FAAAA |
| Whether the safety-regulatory exception to FAAAA preemption preserves plaintiffs' negligent-hiring claims | Plaintiffs: safety exception applies because claim concerns transportation/motor vehicle safety | Defendants: claim targets broker services not state safety regulation of vehicles | Held: Exception does not apply; claim does not regulate motor vehicles or fall within state safety authority |
| Whether Wal‑Mart (shipper) can be liable for claims that target Kirsch (broker) services | Plaintiffs: Wal‑Mart can be liable via its role in arranging transport | Defendants: any attempt to regulate broker services through shippers is preempted | Held: Claim against Wal‑Mart is likewise preempted because it seeks to regulate broker services indirectly |
| Whether vicarious-liability claims against Kirsch based only on its selection of Natex survive preemption | Plaintiffs: Kirsch vicariously liable for carrier's actions | Defendants: no factual basis linking Kirsch to driver beyond selecting Natex | Held: Vicarious-liability claims based solely on broker selection are preempted as they relate to broker services |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transp. Ass'n, 552 U.S. 364 (broad FAAAA preemption where state law "relates to" carrier price/route/service)
- Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (preemption framework for "rates, routes, or services")
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a claim plausible on its face)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standards and plausibility)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Sensations, Inc. v. City of Grand Rapids, 526 F.3d 291 (12(b)(6) and 12(c) pleading standard equivalence)