Hess v. Paw Case Brief PDF

Preview

Summary

case brief...

Description

Hess v. Pawloski 274 U.S. 352 (1927) Justice Butler FACTS:   

Plaintiff in error, Hess, negligently drove his car on a Massachusetts highway Because of this his vehicle struck the defendant in error, Pawloski, causing him to be injured Hess was a non-resident from Pennsylvania

PROCEDURAL HISTORY:     

Service of process was made to him with compliance to chapter 90, General Laws of Massachusetts Hess appeared to contest the jurisdiction he filed an answer in abatement and moved to dismiss based on the service of process The trial court overruled the answer in abatement and denied the motion Supreme Judicial Court held the statute to be valid and affirmed the order Hess appealing on the grounds over jurisdiction

ISSUE: 

Whether a state can assert jurisdiction over a non-resident when they drive in their state.

RULE: 



Chapter 90 o When a non-resident operates a motor vehicle the state they accept the rights and privileges given to them by the state, this is limited to proceedings that come out of accidents o It is requires that the non-resident receive a receipt of notice of the service and a copy of the process In the public interest the state can make rules and regulations to promote safety, and this can apply to both residents and non-residents

REASON: 

The state can extend their power over the use of their highways to non-residents in order to promote safety on their highways and roads. When a non-resident drives in another state they receive the rights and privileges of laws of that state has in regards to driving on their highways. The plaintiff in error used the highways and caused an accident so they are liable in Massachusetts for the negligent driving.

HOLDING:



Judgement affirmed. The court held that the state can assert jurisdiction over a nonresident.

NOTES: 

Abatement: interruption in legal proceeding...