Doug Marcello
The finding everyone is missing
A Dallas County jury just handed down one of the first verdicts after Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II: A $604 million verdict in Lipe v. Lupus Superior, LLC, et al., naming freight broker C.H. Robinson.
The press coverage focused on negligent selection. The jury found C.H. Robinson negligent, right alongside the driver and the motor carrier. That’s accurate, but it’s not the finding that matters most.
What’s getting overlooked is a second, separate set of findings. The jury found the driver was C.H. Robinson’s borrowed employee, operating under its control. Those agency findings do not depend on C.H. Robinson’s own negligence causing anything, they make C.H. Robinson vicariously liable for the driver’s negligence instead.
While Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring, opinion noted brokers could defend by showing they selected a reputable trucking company in the Montgomery case, it did not address the potential agency exposure.
Why It Matters
A broker can lose the causation fight on its own negligence. However, once a jury finds operational control, the driver’s fault share can be attributed to the broker too. And Texas’s joint-and-several rule can turn that into exposure for the whole verdict. At least that is the Plaintiffs’ argument in seeking to enter judgment in the Lipe case.
By The Numbers
- $604M: Total verdict (not yet a final judgment; post-trial motions pending, appeal anticipated)
- 45% / 32% / 23%: Fault assigned to the driver / Motor carrier / C.H. Robinson
- 68%: C.H. Robinson’s potential combined exposure if plaintiffs’ vicarious-liability argument holds (23% direct + 45% via the driver)
- 50%+: The threshold that triggers joint-and-several liability under Texas law (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.013)
The Details
The jury answered three questions:
- The driver, the motor carrier, and C.H. Robinson were all negligent.
- The driver was C.H. Robinson’s borrowed employee.
- The driver was operating in furtherance of a mission for C.H. Robinson’s benefit and subject to its control over the details.
Plaintiffs built those findings on C.H. Robinson’s alleged authority over pickup and delivery windows, scheduling and rescheduling, late-delivery fines, and contract termination. The ordinary tools of freight brokerage were read by a jury as evidence of an employer-employee relationship.
What To Watch
- Whether the trial court grants plaintiffs’ motion to enter judgment for the full $604M
- C.H. Robinson’s anticipated appeal, which may test whether an independent carrier’s driver can be a broker’s borrowed employee under Texas law at all
- Whether the plaintiffs’ firms now build “operational control” discovery into every post-Montgomery broker case
The Bottom Line
Montgomery took away the federal shield. Lipe shows what plaintiffs do next: Pair the negligence claim with an agency theory, so a narrow causation loss on one theory doesn’t end the case. Vetting carriers better defends against negligent selection. It does nothing for borrowed employees.
