Quinones v. Ladejo
2021 Ohio 1988
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- A tractor-trailer operated by an employee of Wisconsin Trucks rear-ended David Scheehle on the Ohio Turnpike, causing serious injuries.
- Plaintiffs (Scheehle’s mother and legal guardian) sued multiple defendants, including ProServ Logistics (a freight broker), alleging vicarious liability, negligent entrustment, and negligent selection/supervision/retention of the carrier/driver.
- ProServ moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(1), asserting that plaintiffs’ claims are preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA), 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c).
- The trial court granted ProServ’s motion and dismissed the claims against it; plaintiffs appealed the dismissal.
- The court of appeals considered whether the FAAAA’s general preemption clause bars these negligence claims and whether the statute’s safety-regulatory exception preserves them; it reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FAAAA §14501(c)(1) preempts negligence/vicarious-liability claims against a broker for negligent selection/supervision | Negligence claims are general common-law duties that do not target the brokerage industry and therefore do not “relate to” broker services | Claims target the broker’s core service (arranging carriers); thus they “relate to” broker services and are preempted | Court agreed the claims "relate to" a broker’s services and fall within the general preemption provision |
| Whether the safety-regulatory exception, §14501(c)(2)(A), saves plaintiffs’ negligence claims from preemption | State safety authority includes common-law tort claims regulating safety; thus the safety exception preserves negligence claims | The exception is limited to direct regulation of motor vehicles, not duties imposed on broker services; therefore it does not save the claims | Court followed Miller and construed the safety exception broadly to include common-law safety claims relating to motor vehicles; the exception saves plaintiffs’ negligence claims, so dismissal was reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transp. Ass'n, 552 U.S. 364 (2008) (interpreting breadth of preemption language modeled by the FAAAA)
- Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (1992) (construing the phrase “related to” in airline deregulation preemption)
- Dan's City Used Cars, Inc. v. Pelkey, 569 U.S. 251 (2013) (preemption analysis; limits on preemption when impact is tenuous or peripheral)
- Miller v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 976 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2020) (held broker negligence claims saved by FAAAA safety exception; interpreted safety exception broadly)
- Creagan v. Wal-Mart Trans., LLC, 354 F. Supp. 3d 808 (N.D. Ohio 2018) (held negligent-brokering claims preempted under the FAAAA)
- United Parcel Serv., Inc. v. Flores-Galarza, 318 F.3d 323 (1st Cir. 2003) (construed "related to" broadly in preemption context)
- Minton v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 80 Ohio St.3d 62 (1997) (discussing preemption and the presumption against federal displacement of state police powers)