Florida Truck Accident Lawyers Investigating the Companies Behind the Truck

Written by Andrew Ellenberg, Esq. | Last reviewed: August 5, 2026

A commercial truck crash may involve considerably more than the conduct of the person behind the wheel.

Behind the driver may be a motor carrier, freight broker, shipper, logistics platform, vehicle owner, maintenance contractor, cargo-loading company, or national retailer such as Amazon. Several businesses may have participated in selecting the carrier, setting the schedule, monitoring the shipment, maintaining the equipment, or controlling the work.

Needle & Ellenberg, P.A. handles serious truck-accident and wrongful-death cases throughout Florida. The firm represents motorists, passengers, pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists, roadside workers, and families affected by commercial-vehicle crashes.

If you or someone in your family was seriously injured in a truck crash, call (305) 530-0000 for a free case evaluation.

Truck Crashes Require More Than a Routine Automobile Investigation

A loaded tractor-trailer can cause catastrophic injuries before the driver of a smaller vehicle has sufficient time or distance to respond. A truck’s weight, stopping distance, large blind areas, cargo, and potential for underride can substantially increase the severity of a collision.

In its 2026 Montgomery decision, the United States Supreme Court cited federal data showing that approximately 500,000 reported truck crashes in 2022 caused about 5,000 deaths and 114,000 injuries. Read the Supreme Court’s opinion in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC.

The driver’s conduct is an important part of the investigation, but it may not provide the complete explanation. Available evidence may show that a company:

• Selected a carrier with a concerning safety history;
• Hired or retained an unqualified driver;
• Pressured a driver to continue despite illness or fatigue;
• Established an unsafe or unrealistic delivery schedule;
• Failed to address excessive driving hours or inaccurate logs;
• Received reports of speeding, distraction, or harsh braking;
• Allowed a poorly maintained truck or trailer to remain in service;
• Failed to secure or balance the cargo properly;
• Continued using a driver or carrier after prior safety incidents; or
• Exercised meaningful operational control despite using an independent-contractor agreement.

A careful investigation should consider what the companies involved knew, what information was reasonably available, what precautions were practical, and whether a failure to use reasonable care contributed to the crash.

Companies That May Share Responsibility

Responsibility depends on the facts. A serious truck-accident claim may involve several participants in the transportation chain.

The Truck Driver

A driver may be responsible for speeding, distracted driving, fatigue, following too closely, an unsafe lane change, impaired driving, or violating a traffic or commercial-vehicle safety rule.

The Motor Carrier

The motor carrier is the trucking company operating the vehicle. It may be responsible for the driver’s conduct and for its own decisions concerning hiring, training, supervision, dispatch, inspection, and maintenance.

The Freight Broker

A freight broker connects a shipper that needs goods transported with a motor carrier that supplies the truck and driver. A broker may face responsibility when it fails to use reasonable care in selecting a carrier despite safety information that would have caused a reasonably careful broker to reconsider the selection.

A broker is not liable merely because a crash occurred. Relevant questions include what the broker knew or reasonably should have known, whether it followed an appropriate carrier-review process, and whether its selection contributed to the collision.

The Shipper or Retailer

A retailer, manufacturer, distributor, or other shipper may select a carrier, impose delivery requirements, monitor the shipment, or receive information about the businesses moving its freight. The extent of its responsibility depends on its conduct and level of control.

A Logistics Company or Digital Freight Platform

Loads are frequently assigned and monitored through logistics platforms. Platform records may show who selected the carrier, established the route, communicated with the driver, monitored the shipment, and received safety-related information.

Maintenance, Leasing, and Loading Companies

Separate businesses may own the tractor, lease the trailer, maintain the brakes or tires, or load the cargo. A maintenance, equipment, or cargo failure may contribute to a crash even when the driver also made an error.

The investigation should follow the contracts, communications, payments, electronic data, and actual exercise of control rather than relying solely on the company name displayed on the truck.

The Supreme Court’s Montgomery Decision Supports Freight-Broker Accountability

On May 14, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC.

Shawn Montgomery suffered an amputation and other permanent injuries after a tractor-trailer struck his stopped truck. C.H. Robinson had brokered the shipment and selected the motor carrier. Montgomery alleged that C.H. Robinson knew or should have known that the carrier’s safety history made a serious crash reasonably foreseeable.

C.H. Robinson argued that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, commonly called the FAAAA, prevented Montgomery from pursuing his state-law negligent-selection claim.

Why Does a Law With “Aviation” in Its Name Apply to Trucking?

Although the statute’s name refers to aviation, Congress used the 1994 legislation to address economic regulation of interstate trucking as well as aviation.

The truck-specific portion of the FAAAA generally prevents states from regulating motor-carrier and broker prices, routes, and services. Congress also preserved state authority over motor-vehicle safety. Those trucking provisions appear in 49 U.S.C. § 14501.

The name is therefore somewhat misleading in a truck-crash case, but the relevant statutory language expressly addresses motor carriers, freight brokers, transportation of property, and motor-vehicle safety.

What the Supreme Court Decided

C.H. Robinson relied on federal preemption. Preemption is a legal doctrine under which federal law may displace certain state laws or claims.

The Supreme Court held that a negligent-hiring claim concerning the selection of a motor carrier falls within the FAAAA’s motor-vehicle-safety exception. State law may therefore require a freight broker to exercise reasonable care when selecting the trucking company that will place a driver and truck on the highway.

The decision did not establish that C.H. Robinson was negligent. Montgomery must still prove that the broker failed to act reasonably and that the failure legally caused his injuries.

The ruling is important because it permits the broker’s carrier-selection decisions to be evaluated on their merits. A broker that reasonably reviews and selects a reputable carrier may have substantial defenses. A broker that disregards meaningful safety information may be held responsible if the evidence establishes negligence and causation.

A $604 Million Verdict Illustrates the Potential Scope of Broker Responsibility

On July 23, 2026, approximately ten weeks after the Supreme Court decided Montgomery, a Dallas County jury returned a $604 million verdict in Lipe v. Lupus Superior, LLC, et al.

The case arose from a March 2021 collision on Interstate 20 in Mississippi. A Lupus Superior tractor-trailer struck stopped traffic and caused a fiery six-vehicle crash. Three people were killed and two others were injured.

The jury found that C.H. Robinson negligently selected Lupus Superior to transport the shipment. According to C.H. Robinson’s filing with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, the jury attributed 23 percent of the $604 million in damages directly to C.H. Robinson. The jury also found C.H. Robinson vicariously responsible for the conduct of the carrier and driver, which may expose the company to a larger portion of the award.

C.H. Robinson disputes the verdict and has stated that it intends to pursue post-trial and appellate relief. The final legal and financial result may change.

The verdict does not establish liability in other cases. It does illustrate that juries may examine a freight broker’s selection practices and operational role rather than limiting the case to the driver and motor carrier.

Amazon Truck and Delivery-Van Crashes May Involve Several Transportation Systems

An “Amazon truck” may operate within different parts of Amazon’s transportation network.

Amazon uses tractor-trailers and commercial carriers to transport freight between facilities, commonly described as middle-mile transportation. It also uses Delivery Service Partners for deliveries to homes and businesses. Through Amazon Relay, outside carriers can book and haul Amazon loads.

Amazon describes many of these businesses as transportation partners. That description is relevant, but it may not resolve legal responsibility. The investigation should determine what Amazon, the carrier, the delivery company, and the driver actually did.

Relevant questions may include:

• Who selected and approved the motor carrier?
• What safety information was reviewed?
• What information was available through the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration?
• Did Amazon assign the load, route, stops, or delivery window?
• Did Amazon monitor speed, braking, distraction, or route compliance?
• Who had authority to suspend the driver or carrier?
• Did Amazon receive prior safety alerts?
• Did the delivery schedule create foreseeable safety pressure?
• Did Amazon communicate with the driver or carrier before the crash?
• Who owned, leased, inspected, or maintained the vehicle?
• Was the shipment managed through Amazon Relay or another Amazon application?

Amazon’s public materials confirm that its network uses Amazon Freight Partners, Relay carriers, Delivery Service Partners, and other transportation businesses. Review Amazon’s description of its transportation partners.

Amazon Participated in the Montgomery Case

Amazon filed an amicus curiae brief in Montgomery. An amicus curiae brief is a submission by an interested organization that is not a party to the lawsuit.

Amazon urged the Supreme Court to hold that the FAAAA preempted negligent-selection claims against freight brokers and shippers. The Supreme Court held that the negligent-selection claim against C.H. Robinson, acting as a freight broker, was not preempted.

The Court did not resolve the legal status of Amazon in a particular crash or decide the full range of potential claims against shippers. Those issues remain dependent on the applicable law, Amazon’s role, its conduct, and the evidence.

The decision provides a clearer path when Amazon or another company functioned as a broker or participated in selecting the motor carrier. Read Amazon’s brief in Montgomery.

Juries Have Examined Amazon’s Control Over Delivery Contractors

Reported verdicts involving Amazon delivery vehicles show why the practical relationship between Amazon and a contractor may matter.

$44.6 Million South Carolina Verdict

In December 2023, a South Carolina jury returned a reported $44.6 million verdict in Shannon Shaw v. Amazon.com Inc., et al.

The case involved a motorcyclist who suffered a traumatic brain injury and orthopedic injuries when an Amazon delivery van turned across his path. The evidence reportedly included Amazon’s ownership of the van, assignment of the route and packages, and access to application data documenting distracted-driving events associated with the driver.

The award included $30 million in punitive damages. Review the reported Shaw verdict.

$16.2 Million Georgia Verdict

In August 2024, a Georgia jury returned a reported $16.2 million verdict in Bradfield v. Amazon Logistics, et al. after a delivery van struck and seriously injured a child.

The jury assigned 85 percent of the fault to Amazon on a negligent-training claim and found that Amazon exercised sufficient control over the delivery partner to support liability under employment-relationship principles. Review the reported Bradfield verdict.

These verdicts arose under the facts and law of other states. They do not determine the outcome of a Florida case. They do show why contracts, training records, route data, safety monitoring, and the degree of corporate control should be examined.

Truck-Accident Cases Needle & Ellenberg Handles Throughout Florida

Needle & Ellenberg evaluates serious injury and wrongful-death cases throughout the state involving:

• Tractor-trailers and 18-wheelers;
• Amazon trucks and delivery vans;
• Amazon Relay carriers;
• Freight brokers and logistics companies;
• FedEx, UPS, and other package-delivery vehicles;
• Box trucks and moving trucks;
• Dump trucks and construction vehicles;
• Tankers and hazardous-material carriers;
• Flatbeds and unsecured cargo;
• Garbage and waste-collection trucks;
• Tow trucks;
• Delivery vans;
• Commercial fleet vehicles;
• Jackknife crashes;
• Underride collisions;
• Wide-turn crashes;
• Rear-end collisions;
• Blind-area lane-change crashes;
• Tire, brake, and mechanical failures; and
• Crashes involving pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists, or roadside workers.

The firm’s truck-accident practice is not limited to Miami-Dade County. Needle & Ellenberg handles qualifying cases throughout Florida, including matters arising in South Florida, Central Florida, Southwest Florida, the Gulf Coast, and other parts of the state.

Evidence May Be Lost Without Prompt Preservation

Trucking companies, brokers, and logistics platforms often begin investigating shortly after a serious crash. Some electronic records are retained for limited periods or may be overwritten through routine business processes.

Federal regulations generally require a motor carrier to preserve drivers’ records of duty status and supporting documents for at least six months. These materials may include records generated by an electronic logging device, or ELD, which tracks driving and on-duty time. Review the federal record-retention regulation.

Depending on the circumstances, a preservation demand may seek:

• Engine-control and event data;
• Electronic logging-device records;
• Dash-camera and inward-facing-camera video;
• Global Positioning System location and route data;
• Speed, braking, steering, and collision alerts;
• Driver qualification and training files;
• Drug-and-alcohol testing records;
• Hours-of-service records;
• Dispatch instructions;
• Bills of lading and load confirmations;
• Broker-carrier and shipper-broker agreements;
• Amazon Relay or delivery-application data;
• Driver scorecards and safety alerts;
• Text messages, emails, and recorded calls;
• Vehicle inspection and maintenance records;
• Brake, tire, and repair records;
• Cargo-loading and securement records;
• Federal safety ratings and Safety Measurement System data;
• Prior crash and violation history;
• Insurance policies; and
• The tractor, trailer, delivery van, and other involved vehicles.

The involved vehicles may need to be preserved before repair, salvage, sale, or alteration. An independent inspection can help evaluate brake defects, tire failures, steering problems, lighting defects, collision damage, and data stored in onboard systems.

Reasonable preservation requests should be tailored to the crash, the parties, and the evidence likely to exist.

Compensation After a Serious Truck Crash

Depending on the injuries and applicable law, an injured person may seek compensation for:

• Emergency treatment and hospitalization;
• Surgery and rehabilitation;
• Past and future medical expenses;
• Lost income;
• Reduced future earning capacity;
• Long-term nursing or attendant care;
• Home and vehicle modifications;
• Physical pain;
• Emotional and psychological harm;
• Disability and disfigurement;
• Loss of normal life; and
• Damage to a vehicle and other property.

When a truck crash causes death, Florida’s Wrongful Death Act may allow eligible survivors and the estate to seek damages for lost support and services, funeral expenses, medical expenses, loss of companionship, mental pain and suffering, and other recognized losses.

The available damages depend on the evidence, applicable law, insurance coverage, and the relationship between the survivors and the person who died.

Florida Filing Deadlines Depend on the Date of the Accident or Death

For personal-injury negligence claims, the statute of limitations that applies depends on the date of the accident:

Accident before March 24, 2023: The four-year statute of limitations applies. For example, if your accident occurred on January 15, 2023, your deadline to file a lawsuit is January 15, 2027.

Accident on or after March 24, 2023: The two-year statute of limitations applies. For example, if your accident occurred on June 1, 2024, your deadline to file is June 1, 2026.

The law is not retroactive. The new two-year deadline applies only to causes of action that accrued after the law’s effective date.

For an ordinary negligence claim, the applicable period generally does not change because the injured person is a minor.

Wrongful death: A Florida wrongful-death action generally must be filed within two years from the date of death. The personal representative files the action on behalf of the estate and eligible survivors. A survivor’s status as a minor does not create a separate or extended filing period.

Other statutes and notice requirements may apply when a government vehicle or another specialized legal issue is involved. If you are unsure which deadline applies, consult an attorney immediately—guessing wrong could cost your case.

The practical period for preserving truck evidence may be considerably shorter. Video may be overwritten, electronic data may be lost through routine retention practices, vehicles may be repaired, and witnesses may become difficult to locate.

Prompt investigation can help preserve relevant evidence and identify the companies that may bear responsibility.

Why the Injured and their Families Choose Needle & Ellenberg

Needle & Ellenberg, P.A. represents injured people and families rather than trucking companies, logistics corporations, or insurance carriers.

The firm offers:

• More than eight decades of combined legal experience;
• Free case evaluations;
• Direct attorney involvement;
• Investigation of drivers, carriers, brokers, shippers, and contractors;
• Prompt evidence-preservation work;
• Access to qualified crash-reconstruction and trucking-safety experts;
• Experience with catastrophic-injury and wrongful-death litigation;
• Resources to pursue claims involving national corporations and insurers; and
• Spanish-speaking assistance.

Needle & Ellenberg handles qualifying cases throughout Florida. The firm’s main office is in Miami, with additional offices in Fort Lauderdale, Orlando, and Tampa by appointment.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who May Be Responsible for a Commercial Truck Crash?

Potentially responsible parties may include the driver, motor carrier, freight broker, shipper, logistics company, retailer, trailer owner, leasing company, maintenance provider, cargo-loading company, and vehicle or component manufacturer.

The evidence determines which parties should be included. The investigation may consider who selected the carrier, controlled the work, created the schedule, maintained the vehicle, loaded the cargo, and received safety information.

How Does the Montgomery Decision Help People Injured in Truck Crashes?

Montgomery confirms that the FAAAA does not categorically block a safety-related negligent-selection claim against a freight broker. An injured person may present evidence that a broker failed to use reasonable care when choosing a motor carrier.

The claimant must still prove negligence and causation. The decision permits the broker’s conduct to be evaluated under state safety law.

What Rights May Apply After an Amazon Truck or Delivery-Van Crash?

An injured person may have claims against the driver, the driver’s employer, a Delivery Service Partner, a motor carrier, Amazon, a freight broker, or another company in the transportation chain.

Amazon’s potential responsibility depends on its role and conduct. Route assignments, application data, safety alerts, communications, contracts, vehicle ownership, training, and carrier-selection records may help establish that role.

How Does an Independent-Contractor Agreement Affect a Truck Case?

The agreement is relevant, but it may not resolve the issue by itself. Courts and juries may examine the practical relationship between the businesses, including control over routes, schedules, drivers, training, equipment, safety monitoring, and the right to suspend or terminate work.

The Lipe, Shaw, and Bradfield verdicts illustrate why the underlying facts require careful review.

What Evidence May Show That a Broker Selected an Unsafe Carrier?

Relevant evidence may include federal safety data, prior crashes, inspection violations, hours-of-service violations, unsafe-driving alerts, insurance records, internal carrier scorecards, communications, prior load history, and the broker’s carrier-selection policies.

The investigation may also examine whether the broker followed its own procedures and responded reasonably to the information available at the time.

When Should I Contact a Florida Truck-Accident Lawyer?

After urgent medical and family needs are addressed, prompt legal consultation may help preserve video, electronic data, vehicles, driver records, dispatch communications, and corporate documents.

Early consultation does not require a decision to file a lawsuit. It allows the available facts, deadlines, and preservation needs to be evaluated.

How Much Does It Cost to Have Needle & Ellenberg Evaluate a Truck Case?

The initial case evaluation is free. Qualifying personal-injury and wrongful-death cases may be handled on a contingency-fee basis, subject to a written fee agreement.

Request a Free Florida Truck-Accident Case Evaluation

If an 18-wheeler, Amazon truck, delivery van, or other commercial vehicle seriously injured you or caused a death in your family, responsibility may extend beyond the driver.

Needle & Ellenberg can investigate:

• Who owned and operated the vehicle;
• Who employed or controlled the driver;
• Who selected the motor carrier;
• Whether meaningful safety warnings were available;
• Whether delivery demands contributed to unsafe operation;
• Whether commercial-vehicle regulations were violated;
• What electronic evidence remains available; and
• Which corporations and insurance policies may apply.

Call Needle & Ellenberg, P.A. at (305) 530-0000 or request a free case evaluation online.

Needle & Ellenberg, P.A.

3350 Mary Street, First Floor

Miami, Florida 33133

(305) 530-0000

The firm handles qualifying cases throughout Florida and maintains additional offices in Fort Lauderdale, Orlando, and Tampa by appointment.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Case results depend on the particular facts, available evidence, applicable law, and insurance coverage. This information is not legal advice, and contacting the firm does not create an attorney-client relationship.