| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

In the case of Phoenix Railway Company v. Landis, Administrator of Sanders (1913), the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court could exercise jurisdiction over an out-of-state corporation that had not been served within its borders. The plaintiff, Landis, as administrator for Sanders' estate sued Phoenix Railway in Indiana for wrongful death after Sanders died in Arizona due to alleged negligence by the railway company. However, Phoenix Railway argued that since it did not operate or have any property or agents in Indiana and was only served notice through mail while operating outside of Indiana's boundaries, the state court lacked personal jurisdiction over them. The Supreme Court ruled against Phoenix Railway stating that corporations are subject to suit where they do business even if they don't have physical presence there. It held that service on an agent authorized by law is sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon a foreign corporation doing business within a State; hence no constitutional right is violated when such service is made under statutory authority without actual presence of corporate officers or agents at time and place of service.
The dissenting opinion in the Phoenix Railway Company v. Landis case argued that the court majority had erred in its interpretation of negligence and liability. The dissent emphasized that there was no evidence to suggest any negligence on part of the deceased, Sanders, who was killed by a train while crossing railway tracks at night. It pointed out that it is not uncommon for people to cross railway tracks and it does not necessarily imply recklessness or carelessness. Furthermore, they contended that even if Sanders had been negligent, this should have been considered contributory negligence which would reduce but not eliminate damages awarded rather than being used as an absolute bar against recovery. They also disagreed with the majority's view about what constitutes "ordinary care" under such circumstances arguing instead for a more flexible standard based on reasonableness given specific conditions and situations.