Hess v. Pawloski

Supreme Court of the United States · 1927 · Civil Procedure

274 U.S. 352 (1927)

Updated July 29, 2026

Civil ProcedurePersonal JurisdictionService of ProcessNonresident Motoristsdue processFourteenth Amendmentimplied consentnonresident motorist statute

Facts

The plaintiff sued for personal injuries allegedly caused when the defendant negligently and wantonly drove a motor vehicle on a Massachusetts public highway and struck the plaintiff. The defendant was a resident of Pennsylvania, was not personally served in Massachusetts, and had no property attached there. Instead, service was made under a Massachusetts statute providing that a nonresident's operation of a motor vehicle on a Massachusetts highway is equivalent to appointing the registrar as agent for service of process in actions growing out of accidents or collisions on such highways. The statute also required that notice of service and a copy of the process be sent forthwith by registered mail to the defendant, with the return receipt and affidavit of compliance filed, and it allowed continuances to give the defendant reasonable opportunity to defend.

Issue

Whether the Massachusetts statute deeming a nonresident motorist's use of the state's highways to be an appointment of a state official for service of process in suits arising from highway accidents contravenes the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Rule

A state may regulate the use of its highways by residents and nonresidents alike and may require, as a condition of a nonresident's use of those highways, that the nonresident appoint a state official as agent for service of process in proceedings arising out of such use. If the state has power to require a formal appointment in advance, it may declare that the nonresident's use of the highway is the equivalent of such an appointment, provided the statute is limited to suits arising from that use and affords actual notice and reasonable opportunity to defend.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Lena Ortiz, a resident of Arizona, was involved in a collision while driving through Columbus, Ohio. The Ohio statute provides that any nonresident who uses Ohio highways thereby appoints the director of motor vehicles as agent for service in any action arising from that highway accident, requires the plaintiff to send notice and a copy of process by registered mail with a return receipt, and permits continuances to allow the defendant time to defend.

If Lena is served through the director under that statute, is the exercise of jurisdiction most likely consistent with due process?

Explanation. Due process permits a state to treat a nonresident's use of its highways as the equivalent of appointing a state official to receive service in proceedings growing out of that use, so long as the statute requires actual notice and reasonable opportunity to defend. The statute here is limited to an accident on Ohio highways and includes registered-mail notice and continuances, so it fits the rule. (Derived from Hess v. Pawloski (1927).)