Question

While working on a site in State A, a State B construction worker was standing near a steel crane when the crane's boom swung near a high tension power line. The worker was electrocuted and severely injured. The worker filed an action in federal district court against the power company that owns the power lines. The action seeks $500,000 and alleges that the power company's negligent construction, maintenance, and operation of the power lines caused the injury. The power company is a State A corporation and all its operations are in State A. The power company filed a third-party complaint against the owner-operator of the crane, a State B citizen. The third-party claim is based on state law and alleges that the crane's owner-operator is liable to the power company for any liability the power company has to the injured worker. The worker amended his complaint to add a state law negligence claim for $500,000 against the crane's owner-operator.

Does the federal court have subject matter jurisdiction over the worker's claim against the owner-operator of the crane?

A No, because the court does not have supplemental jurisdiction over the worker's claim against the owner-operator of the crane.

B Yes, because the claim arose from the same transaction or occurrence as the worker's claim against the power company.

C Yes, because all claims asserted arose from a common nucleus of operative fact.

D Yes, because the State B worker has sufficient contacts with State A.

Answer 1

Answer: No, because the court does not have supplemental jurisdiction over the worker's claim against the owner-operator of the crane.

Step-by-step explanation:

Based on the information provided, the federal court doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction over the worker's claim against the owner-operator of the crane.

The reason for this is because the court does not have supplemental jurisdiction over the worker's claim against the owner-operator of the crane.

It should be noted that supplemental jurisdiction can't be used in the overriding of the requirements of the diversity jurisdiction.

The correct option is A.