opinion: PER CURIAM.
  Appellees Erickson and Bennett are longshoremen who were injured by a falling boom aboard the Steamship Alexandria. Erickson and Bennett each filed a libel against the vessel and its owner, appellant Fidelity Shipping Company, alleging that their injuriés were the proximate result of unseaworthiness of the Alexandria. Appellant impleaded appel-lee stevedoring company, W. J. Jones & Son, employer of Erickson and Bennett, claiming a right to indmenity due to an alleged failure to perform stevedoring services in a safe, proper, and workmanlike manner. Trial was had and the trial judge found that the appellees were injured as a proximate result of the unseaworthiness of the Alexandria. Specifically, the supply of steam was found to be inadequate to properly operate the boom and the brake inadequate to prevent the boom from falling. He also found in favor of W. J. Jones & Son on the third-party indemnity claim. He found no failure on the part of W. J. Jones & Son or its employees to perform the stevedoring services here in a safe, proper, and workmanlike manner.
  We have examined the record in this case and find substantial evidence to support each of the above findings.
  Appellant contends that the amount of damages awarded to Erickson was excessive. Our examination of the record convinces us that there is no merit to this contention.
  Affirmed.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
  Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
  When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 
  
  Your task concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "transportation". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.
choices: railroad boat, shipping shipping freight, UPS, flying tigers airline truck, armored cars other unclear