On April 22, 2025, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp signed into law Senate Bills 68 and 69 (collectively dubbed the “Comprehensive Tort Reform Legislation”), with the aim of curbing lawsuit abuse and the explosion of outsized nuclear verdicts in the state’s courts. This landmark legislation, which was widely supported by Georgia’s business community, makes a host of changes to Georgia law in the areas of civil practice, evidentiary matters, damages, and liability in tort actions.

On April 27, 2025, the Washington state Legislature passed HB 1217, the Housing Stability Act, which caps rent increases for most single-family and multi-family landlords and mandates specific notice requirements for rent increases that landlords must comply with to increase rents.  The bill will take effect upon the Governor’s signature or May 20, 2025.

On April 24, 2025, the Florida House and Senate passed the Contracts Honoring Opportunity, Investment, Confidentiality, and Economic Growth (CHOICE) Act, which Governor Ron DeSantis is expected to sign. The Legislature emphasized Florida’s legitimate state interest to strong legal protections in employment contracts, promoting information sharing, training, and development. The law takes effect on July 1, 2025. While most states have moved to restrict non-compete agreements, the CHOICE Act cements Florida as the most non-compete-friendly state in the country. It covers statutorily defined non-compete and garden leave agreements, ensuring full enforceability if specific conditions are met.

In a case that has significant ramifications for transportation litigation in New York, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit  held that the plaintiff’s injuries, which included shoulder tears with arthroscopic surgery and lumbar spine herniations with injections following a rear-end collision accident, could not be considered “serious injuries” as defined by New York Insurance Law §5102(d) (the “threshold law”).

Texas’ 89th Legislative Session is off to a fiery start this year. On March 13, 2025, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick announced his second round of priority bills including, among others, Senate Bill 39 (“SB 39”), which is aimed at protecting Texas trucking. The text of the bill is short, but it aims to build upon the traction gained with the passage of House Bill 19, also known as the trucking bill, during the 87th Legislative Session in 2021. SB 39, which was passed by the Texas Senate on April 24 and is now under consideration by the state House of Representatives, amends Section 72 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code in two keys ways.

As spring breaks in the Northern United States and Canada, drivers are relieved to move past the hazards created by ice and snowfall. However, with an increase in sunshine comes spring’s own unique transportation challenges. Below are some potential issues to consider for drivers and their employers as we move toward summer.

With the U.S. Supreme Court denying certiorari a third time in Gauthier v. Total Quality Logistics, LLC, No. 24-592, 2025 WL 76497 (U.S. Jan. 13, 2025), it appears unlikely the high court will weigh in (at least during the current term) on whether the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) preempts negligent-hiring, negligent-selection, or negligent-brokering claims arising out of a freight broker’s selection of a motor carrier.

On April 11, 2025, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) announced its decision to issue Notices of Proposed Removal from the National Registry of Medical Examiners (National Registry) for failure to adequately perform USDOT physical qualification examinations of interstate commercial motor vehicle operators in accordance with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.

In a seminal case regarding New York’s Child Victims Act (“CVA”), in Nellenback v, Madison County, ___ N.Y.3d ___, 2025 NY Slip Op 02263 (2025), the New York Court of Appeals held on April 17, 2025: (1) “we must evaluate the reasonableness of the [defendant’s] supervision by the then-prevailing standards, not today’s”; (2) “[r]eferences to ‘generalized norms or practices’ alone are not sufficient [to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to summary judgment] where … there is nothing in the record that indicates the [defendant] had any opportunity or reason to know about the abuse”; and (3) plaintiffs cannot defeat summary judgment where “any jury determination [as to constructive notice] would be purely speculative.” Each is pivotal for CVA defendants.