Does the safety exception of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) permit negligent-hiring claims against transportation brokers? Specifically, the Court must determine if such claims are "with respect to motor vehicles" under 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(2)(A). The case involves whether a broker's failure to exercise reasonable care in selecting a motor carrier is preempted by federal law.

• The negligent-hiring claim falls within the safety exception of the FAAAA because it concerns the safety of motor vehicles.
• Common-law duties and standards of care are a valid exercise of a State's authority to regulate safety.
• The broker, C.H. Robinson, knew or should have known that Caribe Transport's "conditional" safety rating made it reasonably likely to cause accidents.
• The safety exception was designed to ensure that federal preemption did not restrict traditional state police power over safety.

• A broad reading of the safety exception would effectively swallow the FAAAA's express preemption of laws related to "price, route, or service" under 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1).
• Interpreting the exception to cover brokers creates surplusage regarding other specific carveouts for route and weight controls.
• There is a textual anomaly because 49 U.S.C. § 14501(b)(1) preempts state regulation of brokers for intrastate services without providing a safety exception.
• Because brokers do not own the vehicles or hire the drivers, their activities are not "with respect to motor vehicles."

• The Court held that negligent-hiring claims against brokers are not preempted by the FAAAA because they fall within the safety exception.
• The Court analyzed 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(2)(A), which provides that the preemption provision "shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles."
• The Court noted that common-law duties and standards of care are part of a State's safety regulatory authority, citing *Kurns v. Railroad Friction Products Corp.*
• To define "with respect to," the Court relied on the *Oxford American Dictionary and Language Guide* and *Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary*, concluding the phrase means "concerning" or "regarding."
• The Court applied the same interpretation used in *Dan's City Used Cars, Inc. v. Pelkey*, where "with respect to" was construed to mean "concern[s]."
• The Court used the definition of "motor vehicle" found in 49 U.S.C. § 13102(16) to conclude that a claim "concerns" motor vehicles if it regards the vehicles used in transportation.
• The Court reasoned that requiring a broker to exercise ordinary care in selecting a carrier "concerns" the trucks that will transport the goods, thus fitting the exception.
• The Court rejected the "surplusage" argument, noting that route controls can serve non-safety purposes, such as guarding against highway wear and tear.
• The Court dismissed the anomaly regarding 49 U.S.C. § 14501(b)(1), stating that the specific text of § 14501(c)(2)(A) controls regardless of why Congress omitted a safety exception from subsection (b).