Employment Litigation · Primary-source case analysis

Hu v. XPO Logistics: A Freight Broker Did Not Owe the Carrier’s Employee a Workplace-Safety Duty

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published April 20, 2026

Hu applies California’s independent-contractor hirer rules to a freight broker after a carrier’s employee suffered catastrophic injuries in an interstate trucking accident.

A carrier employee sued the broker

A truck driver was badly injured while his employer transported cargo arranged through XPO. He alleged that XPO should be liable for failing to protect him during the carrier’s performance.

The Privette presumption supplied the starting point

California generally presumes that a hirer is not liable for workplace injuries to an independent contractor’s employees. The worker therefore needed evidence supporting an exception, such as a nondelegable duty or retained control affirmatively contributing to the harm.

Broker functions were not carrier control

The contracts and undisputed evidence showed that XPO arranged transportation but did not own trucks, employ drivers, select routes, set schedules, or control the manner of driving. A cargo-loss test asking whether a broker held itself out as a carrier did not define tort duties to a contractor’s employee.

Disposition

The court affirmed summary judgment for XPO. The concurrence would have avoided discussing retained control because the appellate briefing did not squarely preserve that theory, illustrating the importance of pleading and presenting each exception distinctly.

Key takeaways

• Begin with the hirer-liability presumption and identify the asserted exception.
• Contract labels matter less than evidence of actual operational control.
• Cargo-liability rules do not automatically establish workplace tort duties.
• Preserve each duty theory in the pleadings and appellate briefing.