In trucking litigation, the focus often falls on the driver and the motor carrier. In some cases, however, the broker and leasing company are also responsible.
A broker is a third-party intermediary who arranges the transportation of freight between a shipper (the party needing goods moved) and a carrier (the party transporting it). Brokers don’t own trucks or cargo — instead, they act as intermediaries, connecting parties that need each other but may not have a direct relationship. Without them, the freight would not move from point A to point B.
In the trucking industry, a leasing company is an entity that owns trucks or trailers and leases them to carriers, drivers, or motor carriers for use in freight transportation. While they do not operate as carriers themselves, they supply the essential equipment — tractors, trailers, or both — necessary to move goods.
The Right to Control: Time, Manner, and Method
To establish liability for a broker or leasing company, the plaintiff must show that these entities exercised control over the motor carrier and/or driver. Courts generally look at whether the broker dictated the time, manner, and method of the carrier’s work. Control can take many forms — from setting delivery schedules, to monitoring equipment, to requiring status reports. In one catastrophic trucking case handled by The Cooper Firm, the broker dictated the exact temperature of the refrigerated trailer and required the driver to comply. In another, discovery revealed a broker who required drivers to check in at specific times with real-time updates on freight status and delivery timing. These requirements went beyond a limited contractual role.
Factors That Establish Broker or Lessor Control
When evaluating whether a broker (or leasing company) is establishing control sufficient to create liability, consider:
- The nature of the lease or agreement — does it extend beyond equipment provision into operational requirements?
- The level of control retained — such as dispatch authority, scheduling, or setting conditions on performance.
- The relationship with the driver or motor carrier— whether the broker’s involvement resembles that of an employer or motor carrier.
- Oversight of time, manner, and method — for example, dictating delivery deadlines, monitoring trailer conditions, or requiring specific reporting updates.
Discovery Beyond the Four Corners of the Broker Agreement
Once a lawsuit is filed, the plaintiff must use discovery to uncover evidence of the broker’s or leasing company’s control. This discovery includes obtaining contracts, communications, and internal policies that reveal whether the broker dictated the time, manner, and method of the carrier’s work. Depositions of company representatives and drivers can expose oversight, such as dispatch instructions, delivery requirements, or trailer specifications. By obtaining these documents and testimony, the plaintiff can develop the factual record needed to demonstrate that the broker or leasing company operated as more than a passive intermediary and should therefore share liability.
The written contract between a broker or lessor and a motor carrier may present the relationship as arm’s length, with limited obligations and disclaimers of control. But the day-to-day reality often tells a different story. Even when the contract denies responsibility, the broker or lessor may in practice direct the driver’s schedule, dictate equipment requirements, or monitor compliance in ways that reveal functional control. Discovery must go beyond the four corners of the agreement to the actual conduct of the parties, because liability can arise from how the relationship operates in practice, not just how it is described on paper.
Vicarious Liability
Whether a broker or leasing company is vicariously liable for the negligence of a motor carrier or driver turns on whether the broker had the right to control the time, manner, and method of executing the work. The test is not limited to whether control was actually exercised, but whether the contract gave, or the broker assumed, the right to control. Evidence of control exists where the broker retains a right of supervision such that the motor carrier is not entirely free to do the work in its own way. Courts have made clear that it is not enough for a broker to merely stop or resume work, inspect progress, or make suggestions. Liability arises when the broker’s oversight extends to operative details of performance. When that level of control is present, the broker stands in the shoes of an employer and can be held vicariously liable for the negligence of the motor carrier or driver.
Conclusion
If you have, or are evaluating, a case against a motor carrier, start with this question: who really controlled the time, manner, and method of the work? The Cooper Firm has handled catastrophic trucking claims involving broker liability nationwide. These are complex cases that demand significant time, resources, and expertise to litigate — and The Cooper Firm has the experience and capacity to do it.