The Supreme Court recently ruled unanimously that CH Robinson could be held liable after a carrier it hired was involved in a crash that cost Illinois resident Shawn Montgomery his leg.

Montgomery deserves compensation.

But the media coverage that followed ignored a larger question: Why is the broker being portrayed as the primary villain in a system involving regulators, carriers, insurers, and shippers?

In full disclosure, I own a logistics company, and our trucks haul freight for CH Robinson regularly. I know from experience they are a conscientious company.

In the Illinois case, the carrier CH Robinson hired had a questionable safety record. I am not disputing that fact.

What grinds my gears is the suggestion that the broker alone bears responsibility. To watch some of the reporting, one might conclude that CH Robinson deliberately hires unsafe carriers with little regard for public safety.

The reality is far more complicated.

According to federal data, passenger vehicles are more often the initiating factor in crashes involving trucks and automobiles. That does not excuse unsafe trucking operations. It simply illustrates that responsibility for highway safety is rarely as simple as a single headline suggests.

Brokers should bear responsibility for poor decisions they make. But when tragedy occurs, the broker increasingly becomes the primary target solely because it often represents one of the largest financial targets in the transportation chain. It should surprise no one that litigation gravitates toward the party with the greatest ability to pay.

Which raises an uncomfortable question: Is the primary objective improving highway safety, or maximizing financial recovery?

CBS never reported on the entire chain involved in moving freight, focusing instead on the convenient villain.

The government licenses carriers and is responsible for oversight. Trucking companies hire drivers, maintain equipment, and make operational decisions. Insurance companies underwrite the risk of that carrier being allowed to operate. Shippers select transportation providers and entrust them with their freight.

Yet when something goes wrong, the spotlight often falls almost exclusively on the broker.

Double-brokering is a factor as well. Too often, a carrier accepts a load and then passes it to another trucking company without the broker’s knowledge. The original broker may have no idea the freight has been given to a carrier it never vetted, approved, or contracted with. The practice remains legal, but it shouldn’t be.

Reincarnated carriers, inadequate oversight, and poor safety practices are all real problems within the industry. But none of those problems begin with the broker alone.

The government licensed the carrier.

The trucking company hired the driver.

The insurer accepted the risk by insuring a dubious carrier.

The shipper selected the transportation provider.

Brokers should absolutely bear some responsibility for the decisions they make. But responsibility should be shared throughout the transportation chain, not concentrated solely on the party with the deepest pockets.