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:
ANDERSON, ADMINISTRATRIX, v. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY CO.
No. 620.
Decided April 26, 1948.
Clifton Hildebrand filed a brief for petitioner.
Frank B. Belcher filed a brief for respondent.
Per Curiam.
Petitioner, as administratrix, filed a complaint in a California state court under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U. S. C. § 51, to recover damages for the alleged wrongful death of one L. C. Bristow. The trial court held that the allegations of the complaint, even if true, were totally insufficient to support a judgment for plaintiff, and entered judgment for the defendant. The State Supreme Court, two judges dissenting, affirmed on the same ground. 31 Cal. 2d 117, 187 P. 2d 729,
The complaint’s allegations and the inferences fairly drawn from them in summary are as follows: November 24, 1942, the deceased was a conductor on respondent’s passenger train westbound from Amarillo, Texas, to Belen, New Mexico. At about 5:30 a. m., while the train was moving approximately opposite defendant’s station at Gallaher, New Mexico, decedent fell from the train’s rear vestibule where it was necessary for him to be in order properly to perform the duty in which he was then engaged, “checking a certain train order signal at said station” of Gallaher. Decedent’s fall resulted in injuries which made it impossible for him to secure help by his own efforts. At the next station where the train stopped, St. Vrain, respondent’s employees “made note of the absence of decedent,” but passed by it and three other station stops, Melrose, Taiban, and Fort Sumner, without taking any steps of any kind to ascertain the whereabouts of decedent or what had happened to him. Finally, however, at Yeso, New Mexico, the regular train conductor directed respondent’s employees there to wire other employees along the route the train had traversed to ascertain decedent’s whereabouts. The Yeso employees “carelessly and negligently” failed to transmit any message “for an unnecessarily long period of time,” and when the message was finally received by other of respondent’s employees at Clovis, New Mexico, they “carelessly and negligently failed to institute and pursue a search for decedent within a reasonable period of time.” When search was ultimately made decedent was found lying alongside the track adjacent to the point where he had fallen while performing his duties on the rear vestibule opposite the station at Gallaher. Three days later decedent died, due to exposure to the very cold weather from the time he fell until he was finally rescued.
It thus appears that we have a complaint which charges that a conductor disappears from a moving train in bitter cold weather at a time when his duty requires him to be on the rear vestibule, his absence is discovered, and efforts of any kind to ascertain and save him from his probable peril are not promptly made by other train employees, the only persons likely to know of his disappearance and the probable dangers incident to it. We are unable to agree that had petitioner been permitted to introduce all evidence relevant under her allegations, the facts would have revealed a situation as to which a jury under appropriate instructions could not have found that decedent’s exposure and consequent death were due “in whole or in part” to failure of respondent’s agents to do what “a reasonable and prudent man would ordinarily have done under the circumstances of the situation.” Tiller v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 318 U. S. 54, 67. See also Jamison v. Encarnacion, 281 U. S. 635, 640, 641; Bailey v. Central Vermont R. Co., 319 U. S. 350, 353; Blair v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 323 U. S. 600, 604; Lillie v. Thompson, 332 U. S. 459, 461-462.
Certiorari is granted, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the State Supreme Court for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed.
The sufficiency of the complaint to state a cause of action was raised under California procedure by an objection of respondent to hearing evidence. Such a procedure, the State Supreme Court held, is in the nature of a general demurrer under which allegations of the complaint are deemed true.

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