Kroger got electrocuted at work. The zap came from an electrical arc from a live wire. His widow couldn’t sue the employer because of worker’s comp. Crane was owned by Owen but leased by Paxton. Omaha Power used to own the power lines but sold them to Paxton. Widow sued Omaha under diversity because they live in different states. Omaha impleaded Owen by Rule 14 – contribution. Omaha got summary judgment (no duty to Kroger), so now widow is suing Owen with same calim she made against Omaha. Do Rules allow this? Yes, by Rule 14(a) – same trans, etc. In middle of trial, they found out that Owen’s PPOB is the same state as widow so there is no SMJ. Appellate court allowed it because they thought the defendant was stupid for not knowing where their PPOB was. Supreme Ct. says since no original jurisdiction, there is none now. Court sees the danger as suing the diverse party that’s not really at fault just to get at the non-diverse party that would be impleaded. This is 1367(b) now. Key to 1367(b) is to draw a diagram.
We have located some similar legal questions and legal question categories. Check out these challenging questions that askquestions about Civil Procedure Cases and are similar to What is the well-known Kroger case about?. Also, we have included a list of some of our more popular legal question categories. These categories are based on what everyone is asking and answering.