Hess v. Pawloski
Citation
274 U.S. 352 (1927)
Facts
A Pennsylvania resident drove in Massachusetts and caused an accident injuring a Massachusetts plaintiff. Massachusetts had enacted a statute providing that any non-resident who drove on Massachusetts highways impliedly consented to jurisdiction in Massachusetts courts for any cause of action arising from that driving, with the Registrar of Motor Vehicles designated as agent for service of process.
Issue
Does a state statute conditioning the use of its highways on implied consent to jurisdiction for highway-related torts violate due process?
Holding
No. The Supreme Court held the Massachusetts statute constitutional. A state has the power to exclude non-residents from its highways altogether; it may therefore condition the privilege of using those highways on consent to jurisdiction for accidents arising from that use.
Rule / Doctrine
Implied/fictitious consent: states may constitutionally require non-residents to appoint a state agent for service of process as a condition of exercising the privilege of using state highways. This satisfies due process because the state has a legitimate interest in providing a local forum for highway accident victims where the accident, witnesses, and evidence are located.
Significance
Hess v. Pawloski was the foundation for implied consent statutes that every state adopted for non-resident motorists, an important doctrinal bridge between Pennoyer’s rigid territorial rules and International Shoe’s more flexible contacts-based analysis. It demonstrates states’ ability to regulate entry into the forum as a basis for jurisdiction, and remains relevant for understanding the evolution of specific jurisdiction doctrine.