Why could the pedestrian not sustain a claim against the driver from State A?

The pedestrian could not sustain a claim against the driver from State A because the total amount in controversy was insufficient. In civil procedure, particularly in the context of federal courts, there are jurisdictional limits regarding the amount in controversy required for a court to exercise diversity jurisdiction. If the claim does not exceed a specific dollar amount (generally $75,000 in federal courts), the court will lack jurisdiction to hear the case. This means that even if the pedestrian had valid claims and could prove some damages, if the total amount does not meet the required threshold, the claim cannot proceed in that jurisdiction.

Other options discuss various aspects that could relate to the claim's viability but do not directly address the jurisdictional prerequisite tied to the amount in controversy. For instance, economic viability or the level of damages might raise questions about the claim's merit, but they are not barriers to proceeding with a case in the same way that insufficient amount in controversy is. Additionally, the mention of a valid defense pertains more to the merits of the case itself rather than the jurisdictional limits that the claim must meet.