If ∆1 wants to sue ∆2 after a ski incident, is it allowed?

The option indicating that independent jurisdiction is required for ∆1 to sue ∆2 after a ski incident is accurate due to the foundational principles of jurisdiction in civil litigation. When one defendant (∆1) wishes to bring a claim against another defendant (∆2), the court must possess the authority to hear not just the plaintiff's claim against the original defendant, but also the counterclaim or cross-claim from ∆1 to ∆2.

Jurisdiction can arise from several sources, including personal jurisdiction (the authority over the parties involved) and subject matter jurisdiction (the authority over the type of case). For ∆1's claim against ∆2 to be heard, there must be a basis for jurisdiction, such as diversity of citizenship or a federal question, as applicable to the context of the case.

If independent jurisdiction is not established, the court lacks the power to adjudicate the dispute between these two parties. This principle reinforces the importance of ensuring that all claims brought in a lawsuit meet the necessary jurisdictional requirements to avoid dismissals for lack of jurisdiction.

Thus, without independent jurisdiction, the claim by ∆1 against ∆2 cannot proceed in the existing suit, making the assertion that independent jurisdiction is necessary a correct conclusion.