What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.

Opinion:
CORAY, ANCILLARY ADMINISTRATOR, v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO.
No. 54.
Argued December 6-7, 1948.
Decided January 3, 1949.
Parnell Black argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Calvin W. Rawlings and Harold E. Wallace.
A. H. Nebeker argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Paul H. Ray and S. J. Quinney.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This action was brought in a Utah state court under the Federal Safety Appliance and Federal Employers’ Liability Acts to recover damages for the death of Frank Lucus, an employee of the respondent railroad. The decedent’s death occurred when a one-man flat-top motor-driven track car crashed into the back end of an eighty-two-car freight train on a main-line track at a point near Lemay, Utah. Both train and motorcar were being operated in an eastward direction on railroad business. The train unexpectedly stopped just before the crash occurred because the air in its brake lines escaped, thereby locking the brakes. The air had escaped because of a violation of the Federal Safety Appliance Act in that the threads on a valve were so badly worn that a nut became disconnected. When the brakes locked, the motorcar was several hundred feet behind the freight train moving at about the same rate as the train, not an excessive rate under ordinary circumstances. The motorcar was equipped with brakes which had they been applied could have stopped the car within a distance of about one hundred feet. But the decedent who was in control of the car did not apply the brakes. Apparently he and another employee with him were looking backward toward a block signal and therefore did not know the train had stopped.
Despite the proof that the train had stopped because of the railroad’s violation of the Federal Safety Appliance Act, the state trial judge directed the jury to return a verdict in the railroad’s favor. This resulted from the court’s holding that the Act didn’t apply to Mr. Lucus, that the Act’s protection against defective brakes did not extend to employees following and crashing into a train which stopped suddenly because of defective brake appliances.
On appeal the State Supreme Court affirmed. — Utah —•, 185 P. 2d 963. That court agreed with the trial court’s interpretation of the Safety Appliance Act and also held that the evidence failed to show that the defective appliance was the “legal” cause of the crash and of the death of decedent. The obvious importance of the restrictive interpretation given to the two federal Acts prompted us to grant certiorari.
First We cannot agree with the State Supreme Court’s holding that although the railroad ran its train with defective brakes it thereby “violated no duty owing” to the decedent. That court said that the object of the Safety Appliance Act “insofar as brakes might be concerned, is not to protect employees from standing, but from moving trains.”
We do not view the Act’s purpose so narrowly. It commands railroads not to run trains with defective brakes. An abrupt or unexpected stop due to bad brakes might be equally dangerous to employees and others as a failure to stop a train because of bad brakes. And this Act, fairly interpreted, must be held to protect all who need protection from dangerous results due to maintenance or operation of congressionally prohibited defective appliances. Fairport, P. & E. R. Co. v. Meredith, 292 U. S. 589, 597. Liability of a railroad under the Safety Appliance Act for injuries inflicted as a result of the Act’s violation follows from the unlawful use of prohibited defective equipment “not from the position the employee may be in or the work which he may be doing at the moment when he is injured.” Brady v. Terminal R. Assn., 303 U. S. 10, 16; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Layton, 243 U. S. 617, 621. In this case where undisputed evidence established that the train suddenly stopped because of defective air-brake appliances, petitioner was entitled to recover if this defective equipment was the sole or a contributory proximate cause of the decedent employee’s death. Davis v. Wolfe, 263 U. S. 239, 243; Spokane & I. E. R. Co. v. Campbell, 241 U. S. 497, 509-510.
Second. The Utah Supreme Court reviewed the evidence here and held as a matter of law that the defective equipment did not proximately cause or contribute to the decedent’s death. That court discussed distinctions between “proximate cause” in the legal sense, deemed a sufficient cause to impose liability, and “cause” in the “philosophic sense,” deemed insufficient to impose liability. It considered the stopping of this train to have been a cause of decedent’s death in the “philosophic sense” in that the stopping created “a condition upon which the negligence of plaintiffs’ intestate operated,” one perhaps of many causes “so insignificant that no ordinary mind would think of them as causes.” The court added, however, that the stopping “was not the legal cause of the result,” thereby classifying it as not “a substantial factor as well as actual factor in bringing about” the decedent’s death. This conclusion was reached in part upon the reasoning that “The leak in the triple valve caused the train to stop, because as a safety device, it was designed to do just that.”
The language selected by Congress to fix liability in cases of this kind is simple and direct. Consideration of its meaning by the introduction of dialectical subtleties can serve no useful interpretative purpose. The statute declares that railroads shall be responsible for their employees’ deaths “resulting in whole or in part” from defective appliances such as were here maintained. 45 U. S. C. § 51. And to make its purpose crystal clear, Congress has also provided that “no such employee . . . shall be held to have been guilty of contributory negligence in any case” where a violation of the Safety Appliance Act, such as the one here, “contributed to the . . . death of such employee.” 45 U. S. C. § 53. Congress has thus for its own reasons imposed extraordinary safety obligations upon railroads and has commanded that if a breach of these obligations contributes in part to an employee’s death, the railroad must pay damages. These air-brakes were defective; for this reason alone the train suddenly and unexpectedly stopped; a motor track car following at about the same rate of speed and operated by an employee looking in another direction crashed into the train; all of these circumstances were inseparably related to one another in time and space. The jury could have found that decedent’s death resulted from any or all of the foregoing circumstances.
It was error to direct a verdict for the railroad. The judgment of the State Supreme Court is reversed and the cause is remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
27 Stat. 531, 45 U. S. C. §§ 1, 8, 9; 35 Stat. 65, as amended, 36 Stat. 291, and 53 Stat. 1404, 45 U. S. C. §§ 51, 53.
Petitioner was employed by the railroad as a signal maintainer. The other occupant of the motorcar had just been employed to work in the same capacity. This was the new employee’s first trip and he took the trip to familiarize himself with the signals. Both occupants of the car were seated and looking back in the direction of a block signal. Contributory negligence is not a defense to this action.

Question: What is the basis of the Supreme Court's decision?

Choices:
judicial review (national level)
judicial review (state level)
Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction
statutory construction
interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order
diversity jurisdiction
federal common law

Answer: 3