## Facts

- Pawloski, a Massachusetts resident, was injured in an automobile accident in Massachusetts.
- Hess, a Pennsylvania resident, allegedly drove a motor vehicle negligently and wantonly on a Massachusetts public highway and struck Pawloski.
- Pawloski sued Hess in Massachusetts state court for personal injuries arising from the accident.
- Hess was not personally served in Massachusetts, and no Massachusetts property of Hess was attached.
- Service was made under a Massachusetts statute providing that a nonresident who operates a motor vehicle on Massachusetts highways is deemed to appoint the registrar of motor vehicles as agent for service of process in actions arising from accidents in the Commonwealth.
- The statute required that notice of service and a copy of process be promptly sent to the defendant by registered mail, with proof of receipt and an affidavit of compliance filed; it also allowed continuances to give the defendant reasonable time to defend.
- Hess specially appeared to contest personal jurisdiction, arguing the statute violated the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause; the trial court denied relief.
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld the statute and the assertion of jurisdiction.
- Hess sought review in the U.S. Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether a state violates the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause by asserting personal jurisdiction over a nonresident motorist through substituted service on a state official, based on the motorist’s in-state highway use.
2. Whether due process is satisfied where the substituted service scheme includes registered-mail notice and an opportunity to obtain time to appear and defend.

## Decision

- The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Massachusetts judgment.
- The Court held that Massachusetts could treat a nonresident’s use of its highways as implied appointment of the registrar as agent for service in suits arising from accidents occurring in the state.
- The Court held that the statute’s notice and timing provisions were adequate to satisfy due process.

## Legal Principles

- A state may condition a nonresident’s use of its highways on implied consent to service of process through a designated state official for claims arising from the nonresident’s in-state driving.
- Due process permits substituted service tied to in-state conduct when the procedure is reasonably calculated to give the defendant actual notice and a fair opportunity to defend, including prompt mailed notice and time to appear.
- Territorial limits on personal service do not bar jurisdiction where the defendant’s in-state activity is treated, by valid statute, as consent to an in-state agent for service for actions arising from that activity.
- A state may apply such protective regulations to nonresidents to address highway safety and accountability for injuries occurring within the state.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld Massachusetts’s nonresident-motorist statute, ruling that implied-consent substituted service on the registrar, coupled with registered-mail notice and a reasonable opportunity to defend, provides constitutionally sufficient process for personal jurisdiction over a nonresident motorist sued for an in-state accident.


Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U.S. 352 (1927)